Appeal Court Vacates Order Freezing 124 Bank Accounts ‘Linked to’ Aisha Achimugu

The court of appeal in Port Harcourt, Rivers state, has vacated the order freezing the bank accounts of Aisha Achimugu, a businesswoman and founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, as well as those of corporate entities linked to her.

In a unanimous decision delivered on Wednesday, a three-member panel of the appellate court dismissed the ex parte interim freezing order granted by the federal high court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.

The justices on the panel are Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche.

The appeal was filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against the decision of the federal high court in Port Harcourt delivered on August 27, 2025, in the case involving Achimugu.

JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT

On April 10, 2025, Turaki Adamu, a judge of the federal high court in Port Harcourt, granted an order temporarily freezing 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu and directed the banks to halt outward transactions.

The freezing order was granted following an application by EFCC.

According to court documents seen by TheCable, Achimugu on May 25, 2025, filed a motion on notice to vacate the freezing order on the ground that it constituted an abuse of court process.

Achimugu had told the court that EFCC, in a letter dated April 24, 2025 (exhibit FF2), directed SunTrust Bank to transfer funds from a frozen account to a Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order was still in force.

On August 27, 2025, Turaki ruled that the transfer of N1.8 billion from the account number 0001313173, domiciled in SunTrust Bank, to the recovery account of CBN was illegal.

Adamu ordered the immediate reversal of the amount.

The account was linked to one of the companies allegedly associated with Achimugu.

EFCC’S APPEAL

Dissatisfied with the court order, the anti-graft agency filed an appeal and anchored it on three grounds.

The grounds of EFCC’s appeal were that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to conduct proceedings and deliver the ruling during its annual long vacation; that the court acted on its own motion and denied the appellant a fair hearing by granting an unsolicited relief and that the court failed to properly evaluate the affidavit evidence regarding the identity and credit balances of the accounts.

Countering EFCC’s appeal, Achimugu’s counsel told the court that the lower court acted within its power to direct the reversal of “illegally transferred funds”.

The counsel argued that the order was a proper and valid consequential order aimed at enforcing the subsisting orders.

THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPEAL COURT

In the lead judgement delivered by Sirajo, the appellate court ruled that delivery of a reserved judgement 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 held that the lower court was right to deliver its ruling on August 27, 2025, and dismissed EFCC’s argument that it was denied fair hearing.

The court added that the respondent filed a further affidavit while the anti-graft agency filed a further counter-affidavit at the lower court on the issue of transfers of funds.

The appellate court said 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 whether the reversal order of the lower court was granted outside the reliefs sought, the appellate court ruled that a court that granted a freezing order has the power to grant another order to preserve its ruling.

The appellate court held that the lower court had the power, in principle, to make the reversal order and that it did not violate EFCC’s right to a fair hearing.

“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,” the judge ruled.

On the third issue, the appellant court held that the accounts frozen by the order of the lower court on April 10, 2025 “were current accounts — specifically, Drive.FGC.Net’s current account No. 0001313173, carrying a credit balance of N50,518,009.57, and Felak Concepts Ltd’s current account No. 0001252281, carrying N16,220,608.37”.

The court ruled that the two current account balances remained intact.

The appellate court held that larger sums are held in different accounts, with N1.8 billion residing in fixed deposit account and “N7,790,000,000.00 referable to internal ledger account nos. 2010155010 and 2010155011”.

The court held that the trial judge declared the accounts identical and did not explain “how current account No. 0001313173 could simultaneously hold some N50 million and yet yield N1.8 billion for transfer”.

The appellate court held that the appeal would have failed if the current account containing the N1.8 billion was captured in the freezing order of April 10, 2025.

The appellate court set aside the order directing the reversal of the N1.8 billion transferred to CBN/EFCC recovery account since the account that contained the sum was not part of the earlier freezing order.

“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 said.

The appellate court ruled that its order did not justify the legality of the decision of the EFCC to order the transfer of the N1.8 billion.

‘EX PARTE INTERIM ORDER SHOULD BE TEMPORARY’

Delivering judgement on the substantive motion seeking to vacate the freezing order, the appellate court ruled that allowing an ex parte order freezing Achimugu’s accounts to remain in force for more than 15 months is an abuse of court process and a subversion of the rule of law.

The court held that an ex parte freezing order is a temporary order designed to preserve the funds in question for a brief period pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

“In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The first and second issues are resolved against the appellant (EFCC),” the judge ruled.

“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.”