The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt, Rivers state, has overturned the order freezing the bank accounts of Aisha Achimugu, a businesswoman and founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, as well as those of other organizations associated to her.
In a unanimous decision issued on Wednesday, a three-member panel of the appellate court rejected the ex parte temporary freezing order granted by the federal high court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The panel consists of Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission filed an appeal against the verdict of the federal high court in Port Harcourt on August 27, 2025, in the Achimugu case.
On April 10, 2025, Turaki Adamu, a judge of the federal high court in Port Harcourt, issued an order temporarily suspending 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu and ordering banks to halt outward transactions.
The freezing order was issued following an application by the EFCC.
According to court documents obtained by news outlets, on May 25, 2025, Achimugu filed a move on notice to vacate the freezing order, claiming that it was an abuse of judicial procedure.
Achimugu told the court that on April 24, 2025 (exhibit FF2), the EFCC instructed SunTrust Bank to move cash from a frozen account to a Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order was still in place.
Turaki declared on August 27, 2025, that the transfer of N1.8 billion from account 0001313173 at SunTrust Bank to the CBN’s recovery account was illegal. Adamu directed an immediate reversal of the amount.
The account was linked to one of the purported Achimugu-related firms.
EFCC’s Appeal
Dissatisfied with the court judgment, the anti-graft agency filed an appeal based on three grounds.
The grounds of the 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 unsolicited relief; and that the court failed to properly evaluate the affidavit evidence concerning the identity and credit balances of the accounts.
Achimugu’s counsel informed the court that the lower court operated within its authority to order the reversal of “illegally transferred funds” in response to the EFCC’s appeal.
The lawyers contended that the order was a proper and legal consequential order designed to enforce the existing orders.
Appeal Court Judgement
In Sirajo’s lead decision, the appeal court concluded that delivering 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 ruled that the lower court was correct to issue its decision on August 27, 2025, and rejected the EFCC’s claim that it was denied a fair hearing.
The court further stated that the respondent filed a new affidavit and the anti-graft agency filed a new counter-affidavit in the lower court about fund transfers.
The appellate court noted 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 lower court’s reversal order was provided outside of the reliefs requested, the appellate court found that a court that granted a freezing order has the authority to issue another order to preserve its verdict.
The appellate court ruled that the lower court had the authority to issue the reversal order and that it did not violate the 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 lower court’s order 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 ordered that both current account balances remained unchanged. The appellate court determined that greater quantities are maintained in separate accounts, with N1.8 billion in a fixed deposit account and “N7,790,000,000.00 referable to internal ledger account nos. 2010155010 and 2010155011”.
The court ruled that the trial judge pronounced the accounts similar and failed to explain “how current account No. 0001313173 could simultaneously hold some N50 million and yet yield N1.8 billion for transfer”.
The appellate court determined that the appeal would have failed if the current account containing the N1.8 billion had been included in the April 10, 2025 freezing decision.
The appellate court struck aside the judgment mandating the return of the N1.8 billion paid to the CBN/EFCC recovery account since the account containing 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 remarked.
The appellate court decided that its order did not support the constitutionality of the EFCC’s decision to require the transfer of N1.8 billion.