. Dismisses software for depart to attraction as missing benefit
Blessing Ibunge in Port Harcourt
The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, yesterday, dealt one other important blow to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in its protracted authorized battle with distinguished businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu, dismissing the fee’s software for depart to problem an earlier appellate judgment on the Supreme Court.
The ruling, delivered yesterday, October 22, 2026, represents one other vital judicial victory for Achimugu, whose extended confrontation with the anti-graft company has concerned investigations, asset seizures, the freezing of company and private financial institution accounts, and several other courtroom proceedings.
In dismissing the EFCC software, the appellate courtroom held that the fee had failed to ascertain ample grounds to justify granting the permission sought.
Excerpt of the ruling reveals that the courtroom declared that the fee’s movement for depart to attraction its earlier judgment to the Supreme Court “lacks merit and accordingly dismissed.”
Consequently, the choice leaves undisturbed, for now, the substantive judgment delivered by the identical appellate courtroom on July 22, 2026, which discharged an interim order freezing her financial institution accounts linked to Achimugu and company entities related along with her.
Besides, it constitutes a contemporary procedural setback for the EFCC in its efforts to maintain the restrictions earlier imposed on the businesswoman’s monetary operations.
The newest improvement is especially important as a result of the sooner Court of Appeal judgment had raised elementary questions concerning the method wherein investigating businesses deploy interim freezing orders and the boundaries of their statutory powers in relation to non-public people and company organisations.
In that judgment, a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche unanimously vacated the freezing order initially granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The courtroom held that permitting an interim ex parte freezing order to stay in power for greater than 15 months amounted to an abuse of courtroom course of and a subversion of the rule of legislation.
The appellate courtroom reasoned that such orders have been meant as momentary measures to protect disputed funds pending the listening to and dedication of substantive functions, fairly than indefinite devices for limiting entry to financial institution accounts.
The judgment adopted a authorized dispute arising from an software by the EFCC earlier than Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, searching for to freeze the accounts linked to Achimugu and firms related along with her.
The software was granted on April 10, 2025, with affected banks directed to forestall outward transactions on the accounts.
However, Achimugu subsequently challenged the order, arguing that the continued restrictions constituted an abuse of judicial course of.
But the dispute took one other dimension when the businesswoman raised considerations over the motion of N1.8 billion from a SunTrust Bank account to a Central Bank of Nigeria/EFCC restoration account whereas the freezing order remained in power.
In a ruling delivered on August 27, 2025, Justice Adamu held that the switch was illegal and directed its reversal.
Dissatisfied with that call, the EFCC approached the Court of Appeal, questioning, amongst different points, the jurisdiction of the trial courtroom to ship its ruling in the course of the judicial trip, an alleged denial of truthful listening to, and the analysis of proof regarding the financial institution accounts.
In its July 22 judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected the fee’s arguments regarding jurisdiction and truthful listening to, holding that the supply of a reserved ruling throughout judicial trip didn’t invalidate the proceedings.
The appellate courtroom, nonetheless, agreed with the EFCC on the separate problem involving the N1.8 billion switch, discovering that the proof earlier than the decrease courtroom didn’t sufficiently set up that the cash originated from an account coated by the April 10 freezing order.
Consequently, it put aside the order directing the reversal of the N1.8 billion, whereas expressly clarifying that its choice didn’t validate the legality of the EFCC directive transferring the funds.
Notwithstanding that restricted discovering in favour of the fee, the appellate courtroom discharged the freezing order in its entirety, ruling that the extended restriction may now not be justified as an interim measure.
The courtroom’s conclusion was unequivocal: the ex parte order limiting the accounts of Achimugu and the affected company entities was discharged and vacated.
Hence, yesterday’s refusal to grant the EFCC depart to problem that judgment on the Supreme Court has now strengthened the Achimugu’s place within the explicit dispute over her accounts.
Although the refusal of depart doesn’t, by itself, represent a contemporary dedication of the underlying monetary allegations, it means the fee has failed within the software positioned earlier than the Court of Appeal to safe permission for an additional problem.
It is believed that for Achimugu, the choice is a crucial improvement in a authorized battle she has persistently maintained was characterised by extreme enforcement measures and disrespect for her constitutional rights
The Founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Limited and Group Managing Director of Felak Concept Group has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and questioned the fee’s dealing with of investigations into her enterprise actions.
In a public assertion in July, she accused the EFCC of subjecting her to intimidation, reputational harm and extended disruption of her reputable enterprise pursuits.
She maintained that investigations and enforcement measures against her had adversely affected substantial investments, enterprise relationships and the operations of firms constructed over a number of years.
The businesswoman additionally raised considerations about what she thought-about a sustained trial by media, insisting that allegations against any particular person have to be established via correct judicial processes fairly than public accusations.
The EFCC, on its half, has maintained that its investigations and asset-recovery proceedings fall inside its statutory mandate to fight monetary crimes and get well proceeds of illegal actions.
The wider dispute has additionally produced different courtroom selections, together with separate forfeiture proceedings regarding belongings linked to Achimugu.
On July 16, 2026, an FCT High Court ordered the ultimate forfeiture of belongings valued at roughly N8.9 billion, together with jewelry, autos and money, following an software by the fee.
More just lately, on October 12, a Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a separate N10 billion elementary rights motion introduced by Achimugu over the search of her residence and seizure of non-public belongings.
Those proceedings are distinct from the Port Harcourt bank-account dispute and eere not overturned by yesterday’s ruling.
Nevertheless, the newest choice brings renewed consideration to the stability between the powers of anti-corruption businesses and the constitutional protections accessible to residents and companies.
While the EFCC possesses in depth statutory authority to analyze monetary transactions and search judicial orders for the preservation of suspected proceeds of illegal actions, the train of these powers stays topic to judicial supervision and procedural safeguards.
The significance of the July judgment, which yesterday’s choice leaves undisturbed, lies principally within the courtroom’s insistence that an interim order can’t be permitted to function indefinitely merely as a result of an investigation stays ongoing.
That place is particularly related in a industrial surroundings the place entry to banking services is crucial to the survival of companies, the discharge of contractual obligations and the preservation of reputable investments.
For Achimugu, the judgment provides a measure of reduction in one of the vital consequential elements of her confrontation with the EFCC, at the same time as different authorized disputes between the events stay separate questions for the courts.
For the anti-graft company, the choice underscores the significance of guaranteeing that investigative measures, nonetheless vital, stay in step with the necessities of due course of and the boundaries imposed by legislation.
Ultimately, yesterday’s ruling doesn’t decide Achimugu’s innocence or guilt in relation to allegations below investigation. What it establishes is that the EFCC’s newest software to take the sooner appellate judgment to the Supreme Court has failed.
And in a dispute that has stretched throughout a number of courts and generated appreciable public consideration, that may be a important authorized improvement for Achimugu.
