The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has vacated the interim order freezing 124 bank accounts belonging to businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu and companies linked to her, ruling that allowing the ex parte order to remain in force for over 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process.
The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has vacated the interim order freezing 124 bank accounts belonging to businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu and companies linked to her, ruling that allowing the ex parte order to remain in force for over 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 the interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The appeal arose from a suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, challenging the Federal High Court’s ruling of August 27, 2025.
Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court had initially granted the EFCC’s ex parte application freezing 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu, the founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, and restrained banks from allowing outward transactions on the accounts.
Achimugu later applied to set aside the freezing order, arguing that it constituted an abuse of court process. She also informed the court that despite the subsisting order, the EFCC directed SunTrust Bank, through a letter dated April 24, 2025, to transfer funds from one of the frozen accounts to the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN/EFCC recovery account.
On August 27, 2025, the Federal High Court ruled that the transfer of N1.8 billion from account number 0001313173 domiciled in SunTrust Bank to the CBN recovery account was unlawful and ordered that the money be returned immediately.
Also Read: Achimugu claims persecution, risk to life from EFCC
Dissatisfied with the decision, the EFCC appealed on three grounds, arguing that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its ruling during the annual long vacation, denied the commission fair hearing by granting an unsolicited relief, and failed to properly evaluate affidavit evidence regarding the affected accounts and their balances.
In response, Achimugu’s legal team maintained that the trial court acted within its powers by ordering the reversal of funds allegedly transferred in violation of its subsisting freezing order.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo held that delivering a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation does not amount to conducting general legal business and does not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
The appellate court also dismissed the EFCC’s claim that it was denied fair hearing, noting that both parties had filed additional affidavits addressing the disputed transfer of funds before the lower court.
The court further ruled that, in principle, a court that grants a freezing order has the power to issue consequential orders necessary to preserve the subject matter of the case.
However, on the issue of the N1.8 billion transfer, the appellate court found that the account from which the money was moved was not among the accounts covered by the freezing order issued on April 10, 2025.
According to the court, the frozen accounts included current accounts belonging to Drive.FGC.Net and Felak Concepts Ltd with balances of N50.5 million and N16.2 million respectively, while the N1.8 billion was held in a fixed deposit account, alongside N7.79 billion in separate internal ledger accounts.
The court held that the trial judge failed to establish how the current account with a balance of about N50 million could have generated the N1.8 billion transferred to the recovery account.
It therefore set aside the lower court’s order directing the reversal of the N1.8 billion, holding that the evidence did not show the funds originated from an account covered by the freezing order.
The appellate court, however, clarified that its decision did not validate the EFCC’s action in directing the transfer of the funds.
In its ruling on Achimugu’s substantive application, the Court of Appeal held that allowing the interim ex prate freezing order to remain in force for more than 15 months was contrary to the purpose of such orders, which are intended to preserve funds only for a limited period pending the hearing of a motion on notice.
The court consequently discharged and vacated in its entirety the interim freezing order issued by the Federal High Court on April 10, 2025, against Achimugu and the corporate entities linked to her.
DAILYPOST
