The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has discharged the order freezing 124 bank accounts linked to businesswoman Aisha Achimugu and corporate entities associated with her, holding that allowing an interim ex parte order to remain in force for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process and a subversion of the rule of law.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, the three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche vacated in its entirety the freezing order made by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The appellate court, however, set aside the Federal High Court’s separate order directing the reversal of ₦1.8 billion transferred from an account at SunTrust Bank to a Central Bank of Nigeria and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission recovery account.
The court held that the evidence before the trial court did not establish that the account from which the ₦1.8 billion was transferred was among the accounts covered by the April 10 freezing order.
The appeal arose from a ruling delivered by Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court on August 27, 2025, in proceedings involving Achimugu, founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Limited, and the EFCC.
Justice Adamu had, on April 10, 2025, granted an application by the anti-graft agency temporarily freezing 124 accounts connected to Achimugu and directing the affected banks to prevent outward transactions from the accounts.
Achimugu subsequently filed a motion on notice on May 25, 2025, asking the court to vacate the order on the ground that it constituted an abuse of court process.
She told the court that while the freezing order remained in force, the EFCC, through a letter dated April 24, 2025, directed SunTrust Bank to transfer funds from one of the accounts to a CBN/EFCC recovery account.
In his August 27 ruling, Justice Adamu held that the transfer of ₦1.8 billion from account number 0001313173 domiciled at SunTrust Bank to the recovery account was unlawful and ordered the immediate reversal of the money.
The account was said to be linked to one of the companies allegedly associated with Achimugu.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC approached the Court of Appeal on three grounds.
The commission argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct proceedings and deliver the ruling during its annual long vacation. It also contended that the trial court granted an unsolicited relief on its own motion and thereby denied the agency a fair hearing.
The EFCC further argued that the lower court failed to properly evaluate the affidavit evidence concerning the identities and credit balances of the affected accounts.
Achimugu’s counsel opposed the appeal, maintaining that the trial court acted within its powers when it ordered the reversal of funds allegedly transferred in violation of a subsisting freezing order.
The lawyer argued that the reversal was a valid consequential order intended to preserve and enforce the earlier order of the court.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo held that the delivery of a reserved judgment during a court’s annual vacation did not amount to conducting general legal business and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
The appellate court consequently held that the Federal High Court was entitled to deliver its ruling on August 27, 2025, and rejected the EFCC’s argument that it was denied a fair hearing.
The court noted that Achimugu filed a further affidavit on the transfer of the funds, while the EFCC responded with a further counter-affidavit.
According to the appellate court, a reasonable person examining the detailed affidavit evidence exchanged by both parties would conclude that they were fully heard on the issue of the transfer.
On whether the Federal High Court granted a relief that was not sought by the parties, the Court of Appeal held that a court which issued a freezing order possessed the power to make another order necessary to preserve the subject matter of its earlier decision.
It ruled that an order compelling the reversal of money moved from a frozen account while the order remained in force, and without the permission of the court, could properly be regarded as a consequential order intended to preserve the subject matter of the proceedings.
The court therefore held that the trial judge had the power, in principle, to order the reversal of funds and that doing so did not violate the EFCC’s right to a fair hearing.
The appeal succeeded on the third ground, relating to the trial court’s evaluation of evidence about the accounts and the source of the ₦1.8 billion.
The Court of Appeal found that the accounts specifically frozen on April 10, 2025, included Drive.FGC.Net’s current account number 0001313173, which had a credit balance of ₦50,518,009.57, and Felak Concepts Limited’s current account number 0001252281, which contained ₦16,220,608.37.
It held that the balances in the two current accounts remained intact.
The appellate court found that the larger sums were kept in separate accounts, with ₦1.8 billion held in a fixed deposit account and ₦7.79 billion connected to internal ledger account numbers 2010155010 and 2010155011.
The court faulted the trial judge for treating the accounts as identical without explaining how current account number 0001313173 could simultaneously contain about ₦50 million and also produce ₦1.8 billion for transfer.
Justice Sirajo held that the EFCC’s appeal on this point would have failed had the account containing the ₦1.8 billion been expressly covered by the April 10 freezing order.
The appellate court consequently set aside the order directing the reversal of the ₦1.8 billion, holding that the materials before the trial court did not establish that the money transferred under the EFCC’s letter originated from an account covered by the freezing order.
The court nevertheless clarified that its decision to set aside the reversal order did not amount to endorsing or validating the legality of the EFCC’s directive transferring the ₦1.8 billion to the CBN/EFCC recovery account.
