The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has dismissed an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking permission to challenge an earlier judgment involving businesswoman Aisha Achimugu at the Supreme Court.
The decision, delivered on Thursday, October 22, 2026, represents another setback for the commission in its legal dispute with Achimugu over interim orders freezing bank accounts linked to her and companies associated with her business interests.
According to reports on the ruling, the appellate court found insufficient grounds to grant the EFCC the leave it sought to pursue a further appeal. The decision leaves in place the court’s substantive judgment of July 22, 2026, which vacated the interim freezing order previously granted against the accounts.
The earlier judgment was delivered by a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche. The panel unanimously set aside an order issued by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The Court of Appeal had questioned the continued operation of the interim order, which had remained in force for more than 15 months. It held that an interim ex parte freezing order should serve as a temporary measure to preserve disputed funds pending the determination of substantive applications, rather than operate indefinitely.
The latest ruling concerns the EFCC’s application for permission to take the matter to the Supreme Court. It should not be interpreted as a separate determination of every allegation underlying the commission’s investigation into Achimugu or her business activities.
Achimugu, founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Limited and Group Managing Director of Felak Concept Group, has challenged aspects of the commission’s handling of the matter. The dispute has involved investigations, restrictions on bank accounts and other legal proceedings.
The refusal of leave means the EFCC has not secured permission through this application to challenge the July judgment at the Supreme Court. Any further legal steps would depend on the applicable procedural rules and the circumstances of the case.
The development also leaves the July appellate ruling undisturbed at this stage, including its decision to discharge the interim account-freezing order.
The case highlights the legal questions that can arise when investigative authorities seek temporary restrictions on financial assets while inquiries are ongoing. The latest decision addresses the application before the Court of Appeal and does not, by itself, establish the outcome of any underlying financial allegations.
Deborah Adeyefa
