Appeal Court voids interim order freezing Aisha Achimugu’s accounts

The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt has discharged and vacated the interim order freezing the bank accounts of businesswoman and founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, Aisha Achimugu, as well as accounts belonging to companies linked to her, ruling that the order had remained in force far beyond what the law permits.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche, the appellate court held that allowing an ex parte freezing order to subsist for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process and undermined the rule of law.

The case stemmed from an order granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025, following an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), directing banks to freeze 124 accounts linked to Achimugu and halt all outward transactions.

Achimugu later challenged the order, arguing that the anti-graft agency had acted improperly by directing SunTrust Bank to transfer N1.8 billion from one of the affected accounts to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order was still in force.

On August 27, 2025, the Federal High Court ruled that the transfer was unlawful and ordered the immediate reversal of the funds, prompting the EFCC to appeal.

The commission argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its ruling during the court’s annual vacation, denied it fair hearing by granting reliefs not sought by either party, and failed to properly evaluate evidence relating to the accounts.

However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the EFCC’s objections on jurisdiction and fair hearing, holding that delivering a reserved judgment during the annual vacation did not amount to conducting general legal business.

According to a report published by The Cable on Thursday, the appellate court also found that both parties had fully addressed the issue of the disputed transfer through further affidavits filed before the trial court.

“A reasonable person looking at the exchange of these detailed further affidavits would conclude that both parties were fully heard on the issue of transfer of funds,” the court held.