By Opeyemi Adelakun
The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has discharged the interim order freezing 124 bank accounts belonging to businesswoman and Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd founder, Aisha Achimugu, as well as accounts of companies linked to her, ruling that the prolonged restriction violated due process.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche, the court also set aside an earlier order directing the reversal of N1.8 billion transferred to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) recovery account.
The appellate court’s decision followed an appeal filed by the EFCC against the August 27, 2025 judgment of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt.
The anti-graft agency had secured an ex parte order on April 10, 2025, freezing 124 bank accounts allegedly linked to Achimugu and directing banks to halt outward transactions.
Achimugu later challenged the order, arguing that the EFCC unlawfully directed SunTrust Bank to transfer N1.8 billion from one of the affected accounts to the CBN/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order remained in force.
The Federal High Court agreed with her position and ordered the immediate reversal of the funds, prompting the EFCC to appeal on grounds that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, denied it fair hearing and improperly evaluated the evidence.
In the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo dismissed the commission’s arguments on jurisdiction and fair hearing, holding that delivering a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation did not amount to conducting general legal business or occasion any miscarriage of justice.
The appellate court also found that both parties had fully ventilated their positions before the trial court through affidavits and counter-affidavits, rejecting the EFCC’s claim that it was denied fair hearing.
While affirming that a court has the authority to make consequential orders to preserve its decisions, the justices held that the evidence did not establish that the N1.8 billion originated from any of the accounts covered by the April 10, 2025 freezing order.
The court noted that the frozen current account contained only about N50.5 million, while the N1.8 billion was held in a separate fixed deposit account not covered by the original freezing order.
Justice Sirajo said, “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.”
Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s directive reversing the N1.8 billion but clarified that its decision did not amount to endorsing the EFCC’s transfer of the funds.
On the substantive issue, the appellate court ruled that allowing an ex parte freezing order to subsist for more than 15 months without determining the substantive application amounted to an abuse of court process and undermined the rule of law.
The court held that ex parte freezing orders are temporary measures intended only to preserve assets pending the hearing of a motion on notice.
“Accordingly, the ex-parte interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Division, on 10th April, 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,” the court ruled.
Leave a Reply