By Anthony Iwuoma
Kindly share:
Businesswoman and oil and gas entrepreneur Aisha Achimugu has secured a major legal victory after the Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt set aside the interim order freezing 124 bank accounts linked to her and her companies, holding that allowing the ex parte order to subsist for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, a three-member panel of the appellate court, comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche, discharged in its entirety the freezing order earlier granted by the Federal High Court on April 10, 2025.
The decision marks a significant turning point in the legal battle between Achimugu, founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which had obtained the interim order as part of its investigation into accounts allegedly linked to her and associated corporate entities.
The controversy began when the EFCC secured an ex parte order freezing 124 bank accounts belonging to Achimugu and companies connected to her, directing financial institutions to halt outward transactions pending further proceedings.
Achimugu, however, challenged the order, arguing that it had exceeded its legal lifespan and had become oppressive. She also accused the anti-graft agency of violating the subsisting court order by directing SunTrust Bank to transfer N1.8 billion from one of the affected accounts into the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account.
On August 27, 2025, the Federal High Court agreed with her position and ruled that the transfer was unlawful, ordering the immediate return of the funds.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the EFCC approached the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its judgment during the annual court vacation, denied the commission fair hearing, and improperly evaluated the evidence relating to the disputed accounts.
Achimugu’s legal team urged the appellate court to uphold the lower court’s decision, insisting that the trial judge acted within the law by protecting the integrity of the subsisting freezing order.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo dismissed the EFCC’s objections, ruling that delivering a reserved judgment during the annual vacation did not amount to conducting general court business and therefore did not invalidate the proceedings.
The appellate court also rejected the commission’s claim of denial of fair hearing, noting that both parties had filed additional affidavits addressing the disputed transfer before the lower court delivered its ruling.
The justices further affirmed that courts have the authority to make consequential orders necessary to preserve the subject matter of litigation once a freezing order has been granted.
N1.8 Billion Transfer Set Aside
On the disputed N1.8 billion, however, the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion.
The court found that the money originated from a fixed deposit account, which was not among the accounts listed in the April 10, 2025 freezing order.
It observed that the accounts specifically covered by the order were current accounts belonging to Drive.FGC.Net and Felak Concepts Ltd, with balances of about N50.5 million and N16.2 million respectively, making it impossible to conclude that they generated the N1.8 billion transferred to the EFCC recovery account.
Accordingly, the appellate court set aside the lower court’s directive ordering the reversal of the N1.8 billion transfer. It was quick to clarify, however, that its decision should not be interpreted as validating the EFCC’s action in directing the movement of the funds.
In what many legal observers may regard as the most far-reaching aspect of the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that interim ex parte freezing orders are intended only as temporary measures to preserve assets pending the hearing of a motion on notice.
Allowing such an order to remain in force for over 15 months, the court ruled, defeated the very purpose of the law and constituted an abuse of court process.
The appellate court consequently discharged and vacated the interim freezing order in its entirety, restoring access to the 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu and her companies.
The judgment is expected to resonate beyond the immediate parties, as it reinforces the principle that interim court orders cannot be allowed to operate indefinitely without timely judicial review, while balancing the powers of anti-corruption agencies with the constitutional rights of individuals and corporate entities.
