Appeal Court Rejects EFCC’s Supreme Court Bid against Aisha Achimugu, Upholds Earlier Ruling on Bank Accounts
*Dismisses agency’s application for leave to appeal as lacking merit
The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, yesterday, dealt another significant blow to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in its protracted legal battle with prominent businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu, dismissing the commission’s application for leave to challenge an earlier appellate judgment at the Supreme Court.
The ruling, delivered yesterday, October 22, 2026, represents another important judicial victory for Achimugu, whose prolonged confrontation with the anti-graft agency has involved investigations, asset seizures, the freezing of corporate and personal bank accounts, and several court proceedings.
In dismissing the EFCC application, the appellate court held that the commission had failed to establish sufficient grounds to justify granting the permission sought.
According to an excerpt of the ruling, the court declared that the commission’s motion for leave to appeal its earlier judgment to the Supreme Court “lacks merit and accordingly dismissed.”
The decision leaves undisturbed, for now, the substantive judgment delivered by the same appellate court on July 22, 2026, which discharged an interim order freezing her bank accounts linked to Achimugu and corporate entities associated with her.
It also constitutes a fresh procedural setback for the EFCC in its efforts to sustain the restrictions earlier imposed on the businesswoman’s financial operations.
The latest development is particularly significant because the earlier Court of Appeal judgment had raised fundamental questions about the manner in which investigating agencies deploy interim freezing orders and the limits of their statutory powers in relation to private individuals and corporate 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 court held that allowing an interim ex parte freezing 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.
The appellate court reasoned that such orders were intended as temporary measures to preserve disputed funds pending the hearing and determination of substantive applications, rather than indefinite instruments for restricting access to bank accounts.
The judgment followed a legal dispute arising from an application by the EFCC before Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, seeking to freeze the accounts linked to Achimugu and companies associated with her.
The application was granted on April 10, 2025, with affected banks directed to prevent outward transactions on the accounts.
However, Achimugu subsequently challenged the order, arguing that the continued restrictions constituted an abuse of judicial process.
The dispute took another dimension when the businesswoman raised concerns over the movement of N1.8 billion from a SunTrust Bank account to a Central Bank of Nigeria/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order remained in force.
In a ruling delivered on August 27, 2025, Justice Adamu held that the transfer was unlawful and directed its reversal.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the EFCC approached the Court of Appeal, questioning, among other issues, the jurisdiction of the trial court to deliver its ruling during the judicial vacation, an alleged denial of fair hearing, and the evaluation of evidence relating to the bank accounts.
In its July 22 judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected the commission’s arguments concerning jurisdiction and fair hearing, holding that the delivery of a reserved ruling during judicial vacation did not invalidate the proceedings.
The appellate court, however, agreed with the EFCC on the separate issue involving the N1.8 billion transfer, finding that the evidence before the lower court did not sufficiently establish that the money originated from an account covered by the April 10 freezing order.
Consequently, it set aside the order directing the reversal of the N1.8 billion, while expressly clarifying that its decision did not validate the legality of the EFCC directive transferring the funds.
Notwithstanding that limited finding in favour of the commission, the appellate court discharged the freezing order in its entirety, ruling that the prolonged restriction could no longer be justified as an interim measure.
The court’s conclusion was unequivocal: the ex parte order restricting the accounts of Achimugu and the affected corporate entities was discharged and vacated.
Yesterday’s refusal to grant the EFCC leave to challenge that judgment at the Supreme Court has now reinforced the Achimugu’s position in the particular dispute over her accounts.
Although the refusal of leave does not, by itself, constitute a fresh determination of the underlying financial allegations, it means the commission has failed in the application placed before the Court of Appeal to secure permission for a further challenge.
For Achimugu, the decision is an important development in a legal battle she has consistently maintained was characterised by excessive enforcement measures and disregard 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 commission’s handling of investigations into her business activities.
In a public statement in July, she accused the EFCC of subjecting her to intimidation, reputational damage and prolonged disruption of her legitimate business interests.
She maintained that investigations and enforcement measures against her had adversely affected substantial investments, business relationships and the operations of companies built over several years.
The businesswoman also raised concerns about what she considered a sustained trial by media, insisting that allegations against any individual must be established through proper judicial processes rather than public accusations.
The EFCC, on its part, has maintained that its investigations and asset-recovery proceedings fall within its statutory mandate to combat financial crimes and recover proceeds of unlawful activities.
The wider dispute has also produced other court decisions, including separate forfeiture proceedings relating to assets linked to Achimugu.
On July 16, 2026, an FCT High Court ordered the final forfeiture of assets valued at approximately N8.9 billion, including jewellery, vehicles and cash, following an application by the commission.
More recently, on October 12, a Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a separate N10 billion fundamental rights action brought by Achimugu over the search of her residence and seizure of personal belongings.
Those proceedings are distinct from the Port Harcourt bank-account dispute and eere not overturned by yesterday’s ruling.
Nevertheless, the latest decision brings renewed attention to the balance between the powers of anti-corruption agencies and the constitutional protections available to citizens and businesses.
While the EFCC possesses extensive statutory authority to investigate financial transactions and seek judicial orders for the preservation of suspected proceeds of unlawful activities, the exercise of those powers remains subject to judicial supervision and procedural safeguards.
The significance of the July judgment, which yesterday’s decision leaves undisturbed, lies principally in the court’s insistence that an interim order cannot be permitted to operate indefinitely merely because an investigation remains ongoing.
That position is especially relevant in a commercial environment where access to banking facilities is essential to the survival of businesses, the discharge of contractual obligations and the preservation of legitimate investments.
For Achimugu, the judgment offers a measure of relief in one of the most consequential aspects of her confrontation with the EFCC, even as other legal disputes between the parties remain separate questions for the courts.
For the anti-graft agency, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring that investigative measures, however necessary, remain consistent with the requirements of due process and the limits imposed by law.
Ultimately, yesterday’s ruling does not determine Achimugu’s innocence or guilt in relation to allegations under investigation. What it establishes is that the EFCC’s latest application to take the earlier appellate judgment to the Supreme Court has failed.
And in a dispute that has stretched across several courts and generated considerable public attention, that is a significant legal development for Achimugu.