The Court of Appeal has discharged the freezing order on Aisha Achimugu’s bank accounts, ruling that allowing the ex parte order to remain for over 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process
Appeal Court Vacates Freeze on Aisha Achimugu’s Bank Accounts
The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt has discharged and vacated the interim order freezing the bank accounts of businesswoman and Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd founder, Aisha Achimugu, as well as accounts belonging to companies linked to her, bringing to an end a legal battle over the ex parte order obtained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
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 held that the interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025, could not remain in force for more than 15 months without offending the principles of fair hearing and the rule of law.
The appeal arose from the EFCC’s challenge to the August 27, 2025 ruling of the Federal High Court, where Justice Turaki Adamu held that the transfer of N1.8 billion from a SunTrust Bank account linked to one of Achimugu’s companies into the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account was unlawful and ordered the immediate reversal of the funds.
Court records showed that the anti-graft agency had secured an ex parte order freezing 124 bank accounts associated with Achimugu and directing banks to halt outward transactions. However, Achimugu later approached the court, arguing that the continued freezing of the accounts amounted to an abuse of court process. She further alleged that despite the subsisting freezing order, the EFCC instructed SunTrust Bank through a letter dated April 24, 2025, to transfer funds from one of the affected accounts to the CBN/EFCC recovery account.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision ordering the reversal of the N1.8 billion, the EFCC appealed, 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 evidence relating to the accounts.
Achimugu’s legal team, however, maintained that the lower court merely exercised its powers to restore funds that had been “illegally transferred” in violation of its subsisting orders.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo rejected the EFCC’s argument on jurisdiction, holding that the delivery of a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation “does not constitute the conduct of general legal business and does not occasion a miscarriage of justice.”
The appellate court also dismissed the commission’s complaint of denial of fair hearing, noting that both parties had fully addressed the issue through further affidavits filed before the trial court.
According to the judgment, “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.”
On the legality of the reversal order, the court held that a court which grants a freezing order possesses the inherent power to issue consequential orders necessary to preserve the subject matter of the case.
Justice Sirajo stated, “An order compelling the reversal of funds moved out of a frozen account during the pendency of the freezing order, and without leave, is a consequential order incidental to the preservation of the res.”
However, the appellate court found merit in one aspect of the EFCC’s appeal after concluding that the account from which the N1.8 billion was transferred was not among those specifically covered by the freezing order issued on April 10, 2025.
The court observed that the frozen current account contained about N50.5 million, while the N1.8 billion was held in a separate fixed deposit account. It further noted that there were additional sums amounting to N7.79 billion in internal ledger accounts, making it impossible to conclude that the N1.8 billion originated from an account expressly frozen by the court.
“I find that the material before the court did not establish that the funds transferred under Exhibit FF2 emanated from any account frozen by the order of 10th April 2025,” the judge ruled.
Consequently, the appellate court set aside the order directing the reversal of the N1.8 billion to Achimugu, citing insufficient evaluation of the evidence. The court, however, clarified that its decision should not be interpreted as validating the EFCC’s action in directing the transfer of the funds.
On the substantive issue, the appellate court ruled that allowing an ex parte freezing order to remain in force for over 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process and a subversion of the rule of law, stressing that such orders are temporary measures intended only to preserve assets pending the hearing of a motion on notice.
“In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The first and second issues are resolved against the appellant (EFCC),” Justice Sirajo held.
“The third issue is resolved in the appellant’s favour. In the final analysis, the ruling of the trial Court directing the reversal of N1,800,000,000.00 is set aside on the ground of lack of proper evaluation of evidence.
“Accordingly, the ex-parte interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Division, on 10th April, 2025 in Suit No. FHC/PH/MISC/178/2025, restricting and freezing the bank accounts of the Respondent, Aisha Achimugu Sulaiman, and corporate entities linked to her, is hereby discharged and vacated in its entirety.”
