In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Emeka Nwite held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had sufficiently established its case against the funds. The court found that Oceangate failed to provide credible evidence to justify the legitimacy of the money or counter the anti-graft agency’s claims.
The forfeiture followed a suit filed by Oceangate seeking to reclaim the sum. However, the court ruled that the company did not discharge the burden of proving ownership through lawful means. Justice Nwite noted that neither the company nor Achimugu presented convincing explanations regarding the origin of the funds.
The judge also dismissed the company’s argument that the money represented gifts received through Achimugu, pointing out that she did not appear before the court to defend the claim. Additionally, no alleged donors were called to testify in support of the assertion.
According to the ruling, Oceangate failed to demonstrate any business activity capable of generating such funds and did not provide evidence of payments from customers or partners.
The case stems from an earlier interim forfeiture order granted on August 22, 2025, following an ex parte application by the EFCC. The court had directed the commission to publish the order in a national newspaper, inviting interested parties to show cause within 14 days why the funds should not be permanently forfeited.
In its filings, the EFCC said investigations were triggered by intelligence reports alleging that Oceangate used suspected illicit funds to acquire oil blocks from the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission. The agency stated that the company participated in the 2024 oil block licensing round and emerged as a successful bidder for deep offshore PPL302 and shallow water PPL3007.
An affidavit by EFCC investigator Usman Aliyu revealed that Oceangate’s financial obligations to the government stood at $37.2 million before the issuance of the Petroleum Prospecting Licence. The company reportedly paid $20 million between March 20 and April 3, 2025, in multiple tranches through its Zenith Bank account.
However, the EFCC alleged that $13 million used for signature bonuses was sourced through unlicensed Bureau de Change operators and involved cash transactions that bypassed formal banking channels. The funds were allegedly collected through intermediaries in Abuja and Lagos and later funneled into the transactions.
Further claims by the commission indicated that part of the money originated from contractors linked to the Lagos State Government, who allegedly converted the funds into dollars and transferred them to Oceangate without any business relationship or investment ties.
In its defence, Oceangate denied wrongdoing, insisting that the funds were derived from legitimate earnings and gifts to its Group Chief Executive Officer. The company also maintained that it engaged a licensed Bureau de Change operator for foreign exchange transactions and had no dealings with individuals or firms named by the EFCC.
The firm further argued that the interim forfeiture order was made without jurisdiction and violated its right to a fair hearing.
In response, the EFCC described the company as a shell entity used to warehouse petroleum assets acquired with suspected illicit funds. It also challenged the credibility of the company’s audit report, alleging that it was prepared without a proper review of financial records.
The commission added that Achimugu, in an extra-judicial statement, admitted to having significant control over the company and acknowledged that it had not executed any contracts in the oil and gas sector.
Justice Nwite ultimately upheld the EFCC’s position, ruling that the funds were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity and should be forfeited in the interest of justice.
The court had earlier, on September 15, 2025, ordered the final forfeiture of $7 million recovered from a Providus Bank branch in Ikoyi, Lagos, after no claimant came forward. Meanwhile, Felak Concept Group Limited has previously denied any link between its chief executive, Achimugu, and the controversial transaction.