In a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, the panel—comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche—partly upheld an appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) but ultimately set aside the freezing order issued by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The appellate court also overturned the lower court's directive requiring the reversal of N1.8 billion transferred into the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account, ruling that the funds did not originate from any account covered by the original freezing order.
Background to the dispute
The legal battle began after Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, granted an ex parte application filed by the EFCC on April 10, 2025, temporarily freezing 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu and directing financial institutions to stop all outward transactions on the accounts.
Achimugu later challenged the order, filing a motion on notice on May 25, 2025, seeking to have it vacated on the grounds that it had become an abuse of court process.
She argued that despite the subsisting freezing order, the EFCC, through a letter dated April 24, 2025, instructed SunTrust Bank to transfer funds from one of the affected accounts into the CBN/EFCC recovery account.
In a ruling delivered on August 27, 2025, the Federal High Court declared the transfer of N1.8 billion from account number 0001313173 domiciled with SunTrust Bank unlawful and ordered that the money be immediately returned.
EFCC challenges ruling
Dissatisfied with the decision, the anti-graft agency approached the Court of Appeal on three grounds.
The commission argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its ruling during the court's annual vacation, alleged that it was denied fair hearing because the lower court granted a relief that was not specifically sought, and contended that the judge failed to properly evaluate evidence concerning the identity of the accounts and their respective balances.
Responding, counsel to Achimugu maintained that the trial court acted within its powers by directing the reversal of what he described as an illegal transfer carried out while the freezing order was still in force.
The defence argued that the order merely preserved the integrity of the court's earlier directive.
Appeal court upholds part of lower court's decision
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo dismissed the EFCC's argument that the lower court acted without jurisdiction because its ruling was delivered during the annual vacation.
The appellate court held that delivering a reserved judgment during vacation did not amount to conducting general court business.
The judge said, “Delivery of a reserved judgement during the court’s annual vacation does not constitute the conduct of general legal business and does not occasion a miscarriage of justice.”
The court also rejected the commission's claim that it was denied fair hearing, noting that both parties exchanged additional affidavits addressing the disputed transfer before the lower court reached its decision.
According to the panel, “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.”
The justices further held that a court which grants a freezing order possesses the authority to make consequential orders necessary to preserve the subject matter of the case.
Justice Sirajo stated, “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.”
Court sets aside N1.8bn reversal order
Despite agreeing with the lower court on several issues, the Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not establish that the N1.8 billion transferred by the EFCC originated from any account covered by the April 10, 2025 freezing order.
The court observed that the accounts specifically frozen contained significantly lower balances, while the N1.8 billion was held in a separate fixed deposit account alongside another N7.79 billion maintained in internal ledger accounts.
Justice Sirajo questioned the lower court's conclusion that the accounts were identical.
He said the trial judge 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 ruled that had the account containing the N1.8 billion been expressly listed in the original freezing order, the appeal on that issue would likely have failed.
It therefore set aside the directive ordering the reversal of the funds, stressing that the available evidence did not connect the transferred money to any frozen account.
The court clarified, however, that its decision should not be interpreted as validating the EFCC's action in directing the transfer of the money.
Justice Sirajo said, “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.”
Court condemns prolonged freezing order
The Court of Appeal held that the most critical flaw in the case was the prolonged duration of the interim freezing order, ruling that keeping an ex parte order in force for more than 15 months defeated its legal purpose and amounted to an abuse of court process.
According to the appellate court, interim ex parte orders are designed only to preserve assets temporarily until all parties have an opportunity to be heard. Allowing such an order to continue indefinitely, the panel said, undermines the rule of law.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo said the appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) succeeded only in part.
"In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The first and second issues are resolved against the appellant (EFCC). The third issue is resolved in the appellant's favour," he said.
Justice Sirajo further ordered that the ex parte interim freezing order issued by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025, in Suit No. FHC/PH/MISC/178/2025, freezing the bank accounts of Aisha Achimugu Sulaiman and companies linked to her, be discharged and vacated in its entirety.
The judgment removes all restrictions imposed under the April 2025 order but leaves unresolved the broader question of whether the EFCC acted lawfully in transferring the disputed N1.8 billion into its recovery account.