The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has ordered the immediate lifting of restrictions imposed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on 124 bank accounts operated by businesswoman Aisha Achimugu and companies associated with her.

The order follows the court’s dismissal of the EFCC’s application seeking permission to challenge an earlier appellate judgment at the Supreme Court, in a protracted legal battle over the freezing of the accounts and the commission’s investigative powers.

The ruling, delivered on October 22, 2026, leaves intact the July 22 judgment of the same court, which discharged and vacated the interim order freezing the accounts.

The appellate court held that the EFCC’s application for leave to appeal lacked merit and accordingly dismissed it, dealing another legal setback to the commission’s efforts to sustain restrictions on the businesswoman’s financial operations.

The dispute dates to April 10, 2025, when the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, presided over by Justice Turaki Adamu, granted the EFCC’s application to freeze the accounts and directed the affected banks to prevent outward transactions.

Achimugu subsequently challenged the order, arguing that its prolonged enforcement amounted to an abuse of judicial process.

In its July 22 judgment, a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche unanimously vacated the freezing order, 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.

The court reasoned that interim freezing orders were intended to preserve disputed funds temporarily pending the hearing and determination of substantive applications, rather than serve as indefinite instruments for restricting access to bank accounts.

The panel also rejected the EFCC’s arguments concerning jurisdiction and fair hearing, holding that the delivery of a reserved ruling during judicial vacation did not invalidate the proceedings.

However, the court ruled in the commission’s favour on a separate issue involving ₦1.8 billion transferred from a SunTrust Bank account to a Central Bank of Nigeria/EFCC recovery account.

The money had been the subject of an August 27, 2025, ruling by Justice Adamu, who held that the transfer was unlawful and ordered its reversal.

Dissatisfied, the EFCC challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal. The appellate court subsequently found that the evidence before the lower court did not sufficiently establish that the ₦1.8 billion originated from an account covered by the April 10, 2025, freezing order.

It consequently set aside the order directing the reversal of the money but expressly clarified that its decision did not validate the legality of the EFCC directive transferring the funds.

Despite that finding, the appellate court discharged the freezing order in its entirety, ruling that the prolonged restrictions could no longer be justified as an interim measure.

The October 22 decision leaves the judgment undisturbed and reinforces the legal basis for demanding that the affected accounts be released from restrictions imposed under the vacated order.

Achimugu, founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Limited and Group Managing Director of Felak Concept Group, has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and accused the EFCC of persecution, intimidation and disruption of her legitimate business interests.

In a public statement in July, she alleged that the commission’s actions had caused reputational damage and adversely affected investments, business relationships and the operations of companies built over several years.

She also accused the agency of engaging in what she described as a sustained trial by media, insisting that allegations against individuals should 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 October 22 ruling stresses the limits of interim freezing orders and the obligation of law enforcement agencies to operate within the boundaries of judicial authority.

With the EFCC’s application for leave to appeal dismissed, the July judgment discharging the freezing order remains in force, requiring the immediate lifting of restrictions on the 124 accounts insofar as they were imposed under that order, subject to any separate, valid court orders.