By Iroyin Yoruba Television
PORT HARCOURT, Nigeria — October 24, 2026
The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt has rejected an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking permission to challenge an earlier appellate judgment at the Supreme Court in its legal dispute with businesswoman Aisha Achimugu.
The decision, delivered on October 22, leaves in place, for now, an earlier ruling that discharged an interim order freezing bank accounts linked to Achimugu and associated companies.
The development is a procedural setback for the anti-graft agency in its effort to challenge that particular judgment. It does not resolve every legal dispute between the parties or determine whether the underlying financial allegations against Achimugu are true.
COURT SAYS EFCC HAS NOT ESTABLISHED GROUNDS FOR FURTHER APPEAL
According to a report published by THISDAY on October 23, the appellate court dismissed the EFCC's application for leave to appeal, finding that the commission had not established sufficient grounds to obtain the permission it sought.
The application concerned an earlier Court of Appeal judgment delivered on July 22, 2026, which vacated an interim order restricting transactions on bank accounts associated with Achimugu and related companies.
The original freezing order had been granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025, following an application by the EFCC.
The appellate court subsequently held that the interim restriction had remained in force for more than 15 months and could no longer be justified as a temporary measure. It discharged the order in its entirety.
The October 22 decision means the EFCC's latest application to take that judgment to the Supreme Court has failed. The ruling does not itself constitute a new trial or a final determination of all allegations under investigation.
DISPUTE ALSO INVOLVED A ₦1.8 BILLION TRANSFER
The wider litigation included a dispute over ₦1.8 billion transferred from a SunTrust Bank account to a Central Bank of Nigeria/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order was in force.
In an earlier ruling, the Federal High Court had directed that the transfer be reversed. The Court of Appeal later set aside that reversal order, finding that the evidence before the lower court had not sufficiently established that the money originated from an account covered by the freezing order.
The appellate court clarified that its decision on the transfer did not validate the legality of the EFCC directive that moved the funds.
That issue is distinct from the court's decision to discharge the interim account-freezing order. The two findings should not be treated as a single ruling on the legality of every action taken during the investigation.
OTHER PROCEEDINGS REMAIN SEPARATE
Achimugu's disputes with the EFCC have involved several legal proceedings. A separate fundamental-rights action concerning a search of her residence and the seizure of belongings was dismissed by a Federal High Court in Abuja on October 12, according to the report.
In another proceeding, an FCT High Court ordered the final forfeiture of assets valued at approximately ₦8.9 billion in July following an application by the commission.
Those matters are legally distinct from the Port Harcourt dispute over the interim freezing order. The latest Court of Appeal decision does not automatically reverse rulings in those separate proceedings.
Achimugu has denied wrongdoing in relation to the broader allegations, while the EFCC maintains that investigations and asset-recovery proceedings fall within its statutory responsibilities.
BALANCING INVESTIGATIVE POWERS WITH DUE PROCESS
The case highlights the importance of judicial oversight when investigators seek restrictions on access to bank accounts during an inquiry.
Freezing orders can be used to preserve assets while suspected financial crimes are investigated. However, courts can also examine whether such restrictions remain legally justified and whether interim measures are being allowed to continue for too long.
For anti-corruption agencies, the challenge is to protect potentially recoverable assets while respecting due process and the rights of individuals and businesses affected by enforcement actions.
For businesses, prolonged restrictions on banking access can disrupt transactions and commercial activity. That makes timely judicial review and compliance with court orders important parts of the accountability process.
The latest ruling is a specific procedural decision: the EFCC did not secure permission to challenge the earlier appellate judgment at the Supreme Court. It should not be interpreted as proof of Achimugu's innocence or guilt in relation to separate allegations.
The wider legal disputes remain governed by their respective court orders and proceedings.