A Federal Capital Territory High Court in Apo, Abuja, has ordered the final forfeiture of assets worth about N8.9 billion linked to businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu, to the Federal Government, after ruling that they were proceeds of unlawful activities.
The assets include jewellery valued at N4.645 billion, 11 exotic vehicles worth N4.293 billion, $50,000 and N30 million in cash.
Delivering judgment on Thursday, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie held that Achimugu failed to establish that the assets were legitimately acquired, granting the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s application for final forfeiture.
The anti graft agency said its investigation was triggered by financial intelligence indicating massive inflows and outflows through more than 136 bank accounts linked to Achimugu, involving billions of naira and millions of dollars.
According to the EFCC, the investigation revealed that the funds passing through the accounts of companies linked to the businesswoman were not declared as revenue in financial statements submitted to the Federal Inland Revenue Service.
Searches conducted at Achimugu’s residence led to the recovery of the jewellery, luxury vehicles and cash, while the commission also alleged that she failed to declare the assets in an Assets Declaration Form presented to her during interrogation.
The commission subsequently approached the court for an interim forfeiture order under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act.
The court granted the interim order on April 23, 2026, directing the EFCC to publish the order in national newspapers to allow interested parties to show cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.
Although Achimugu, through her legal team, challenged the interim order and filed affidavits opposing the forfeiture, the EFCC countered the application, urging the court to uphold the interim order.
In his judgment, Justice Onwuegbuzie ruled that the respondent failed to rebut the evidence presented by the anti graft agency.
The judge held that “the respondent did not dislodge the evidence led by the EFCC and failed to discharge the burden of showing that the assets were from lawful origins.”
Reacting to the judgment, the EFCC maintained that the forfeiture followed painstaking investigations into suspicious financial transactions.
The commission stated that “the assets were found to be proceeds of unlawful activities,” adding that its investigation established that the funds linked to Achimugu “were not from her legitimate business activities and that the recovered assets were not from lawful sources.”
