The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has lifted the interim order freezing 124 bank accounts belonging to businesswoman Aisha Achimugu and companies linked to her, ruling that the order had remained in place for far too long.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, a three-member panel of the appellate court held that allowing the ex parte order to remain in force for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process. The judges stressed that such orders are meant to be temporary, pending the hearing of all parties.
The accounts were originally frozen on April 10, 2025, after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) obtained an ex parte order from the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt as part of its investigation into Achimugu, the founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd.
Achimugu later challenged the order, arguing that it had lasted much longer than the law intended. She also accused the EFCC of acting outside the court’s directive by instructing SunTrust Bank to transfer ₦1.8 billion from one of the affected accounts into the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order was still in effect.
The Federal High Court had ruled that the transfer was unlawful and ordered the money to be returned. However, the EFCC appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its ruling during the judiciary’s annual vacation, denied the commission fair hearing, and failed to properly assess the evidence.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. Justice Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, who delivered the lead judgment, held that delivering a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation was lawful and did not affect the validity of the proceedings. The court also found that both parties had been given a fair opportunity to present their cases.
On the disputed ₦1.8 billion, however, the appellate court reached a different conclusion. It found that the money came from a fixed deposit account that was not included among the 124 accounts covered by the original freezing order.
The judges noted that the accounts listed in the freezing order contained much smaller balances, making it impossible to conclude that the ₦1.8 billion originated from any of them. As a result, the court set aside the lower court’s order directing the return of the money.
At the same time, the appellate court made it clear that its decision should not be interpreted as approving the EFCC’s action in moving the funds.
In what many legal observers may see as the most important aspect of the ruling, the Court of Appeal emphasized that interim freezing orders are not meant to last indefinitely. Such orders are designed to preserve assets only until the court hears all parties and decides whether the restrictions should continue.
Because the order had remained in force for more than 15 months without being resolved, the court ruled that it had become an abuse of court process.
The appellate court therefore discharged and vacated the interim freezing order in its entirety, bringing an end to the restrictions placed on Achimugu’s accounts and those of the companies linked to her.
The judgment is expected to influence future financial crime cases by reinforcing the principle that while law enforcement agencies have the power to freeze assets during investigations, those powers must be exercised within the limits of the law and under proper judicial oversight.