Businesswoman appeals to courts, government and rights groups over alleged harassment, asset seizures and damaging media coverage

Aisha Achimugu, a Nigerian accountant, entrepreneur and oil and gas investor, has appealed to the Federal Government, the judiciary, the National Assembly, security agencies and international human rights organisations for protection, alleging that a prolonged dispute with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has placed her life, family, businesses and reputation at risk.

Also read: Aisha Achimugu: Abuja court approves final forfeiture of N4.3bn cars, N4.6bn jewellery

In a lengthy statement released in July 2026, Achimugu accused the anti-graft agency of subjecting her to what she described as a sustained campaign of intimidation, asset seizures, character assassination and damaging media coverage over nearly two years.

She also called for respect for court orders and the protection of her investments in Nigeria and abroad.

The businesswoman, who said she has not been convicted of any offence, maintained that she was prepared to face lawful investigation provided due process was followed.

“I believe that justice delayed is justice denied, and I am not afraid to face the law provided due process is followed,” Achimugu said.

Her intervention comes amid a series of legal battles and public controversies involving her businesses, the EFCC and assets allegedly linked to an investigation into financial transactions involving MBA Forex and Capital Investment.

Achimugu said the dispute began in 2023 when the EFCC’s Port Harcourt zonal office allegedly froze her personal bank accounts, those belonging to her children and accounts linked to companies within the Felak Group.

She alleged that the action was based on what she described as an incorrect assumption that she was a partner, associate, director or shareholder of MBA Forex.

According to Achimugu, she and her legal representatives later explained that her company’s relationship with MBA Forex involved a single transaction carried out on behalf of the company.

She said her company subsequently refunded N58 million to an EFCC recovery account in January 2024.

Achimugu maintained that the payment was intended to resolve questions surrounding her company’s limited involvement in the transaction and to make clear that neither she nor her children had ownership interests in MBA Forex.

The situation, she alleged, escalated in March 2025 after she received an invitation to appear before the EFCC’s Port Harcourt office.

Achimugu said she was outside Nigeria at the time and that her lawyers subsequently communicated her availability to the commission. She argued that the correspondence contradicted any suggestion that she had deliberately evaded investigators.

On 28 March 2025, however, she said the EFCC declared her wanted for alleged conspiracy and money laundering.

The declaration came, according to her account, on the same day that Oceangate Oil & Gas Limited, a company she said was the successful bidder for two oil prospecting licences, submitted proof of a combined $20 million payment to the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission.

Achimugu alleged that armed EFCC operatives subsequently entered her home and removed jewellery, safes and personal funds.

She described the incident as an “unprofessional” show of force and said it caused severe distress to members of her family.

The dispute later moved into the courts.

Achimugu said she filed a fundamental rights action at the Federal High Court in Abuja in April 2025 and that the court ordered the parties to maintain the status quo pending a subsequent hearing.

She alleged that EFCC operatives nevertheless detained her after she returned to Nigeria on 28 April 2025.

According to her account, she was later granted bail by a court but remained in detention for several additional days before her release.

Achimugu also alleged that her aged mother, who had recently undergone spinal surgery abroad, was subjected to an emotionally distressing encounter during an EFCC operation at the family home.

She said she subsequently filed another fundamental rights action alleging breaches of her rights to privacy and property.

The businesswoman further claimed that the EFCC subsequently froze several bank accounts connected to her and her businesses, disrupting international financing arrangements and affecting commercial relationships.

She also disputed allegations surrounding $7 million said to have been abandoned in a bank account, arguing that records submitted to NUPRC showed payments of $2 million and $5 million made in connection with two separate oil prospecting licences.

Achimugu said a further $13 million from the combined $20 million payment was subsequently made the subject of an interim forfeiture order obtained by the EFCC at the Federal High Court.

She said the order had been challenged on appeal.

The dispute took another turn in January 2026 when, according to Achimugu, EFCC operatives returned to her home and removed vehicles from the premises.

She alleged that the vehicles were taken away using cranes and flatbed trucks and that the action occurred while earlier court proceedings were still pending.

Achimugu said her efforts to secure the return of her property through the courts were followed by another ex-parte forfeiture order obtained by the EFCC at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

The claims could not be independently verified from the statement alone, while the EFCC has maintained its position in the broader investigation and asset forfeiture proceedings involving Achimugu and assets linked to the case.

For Achimugu, however, the dispute has extended beyond the courtroom.

She said the public campaign surrounding the investigation had damaged her reputation, affected relationships with international partners and created uncertainty around investment opportunities.

She also alleged that the controversy had affected her immigration status in the United States and raised difficulties concerning a separate citizenship and visa application.

Achimugu said she learned of an adverse report circulated internationally after she was declared wanted in Nigeria.

She argued that the consequences had extended far beyond the original investigation and had affected her ability to travel and participate in international programmes.

The businesswoman also drew attention to her investment record, saying she had committed almost $90 million to Nigeria’s oil and gas sector within the last five years.

She further claimed that her businesses had attracted more than $100 million in investment into the Nigerian economy and that she had directly employed nearly 200 Nigerians.

Beyond business, Achimugu highlighted the work of the Sam Empowerment Foundation, which she said had supported health programmes, oxygen supply initiatives, medical interventions, schools, water projects and community development programmes across Nigeria.

She claimed that the foundation had reached more than one million people through various interventions, supported more than 2,000 Nigerians with scholarships and provided educational assistance to more than 10,000 children.

Those contributions, she argued, formed part of the wider context that should be considered when assessing the impact of the ongoing controversy.

“I have asked myself repeatedly what I have done to Nigeria, to Nigerians, or to the EFCC and its Chairman to deserve this,” she said.

Achimugu’s statement also reflected the personal cost of the dispute.

She said her children, aged parents and staff had been affected by the controversy and expressed concern about their physical safety and emotional wellbeing.

She particularly criticised what she described as continued public displays of seized jewellery and luxury vehicles, arguing that such publicity could expose her family to unnecessary danger.

The businesswoman said the publication of images and details relating to her assets had intensified what she called a dangerous media trial.

She is now calling on the National Assembly, judiciary, security agencies, human rights organisations and Nigeria’s international partners to examine her case objectively.

Achimugu said her appeal was not intended to place her above the law but to insist that any investigation involving her should comply with constitutional protections, judicial orders and the principles of natural justice.

Her case also raises broader questions about the delicate balance between aggressive financial crime investigations and the protection of the rights of individuals whose assets are subject to investigation or forfeiture proceedings.

The EFCC, established to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes, has increasingly relied on asset recovery and forfeiture proceedings as part of its enforcement strategy.

Such actions, however, have often generated legal challenges over due process, property rights and the balance between public interest and individual liberties.

For Achimugu, the issue has become deeply personal.

She said the experience had not diminished her commitment to Nigeria, despite the financial and reputational damage she believes she has suffered.

“I remain a proud Nigerian, grateful for the decades I spent building businesses without ever breaching the law,” she said.

Her final appeal was directed beyond the immediate dispute.

Achimugu urged Nigerians to protect legitimate businesses and create an environment in which private enterprise can thrive, arguing that investors require confidence in the rule of law and respect for property rights.

“Protect your citizens, protect the economy of our nation, and encourage and support visible businesses,” she said.

As her legal team continues to pursue remedies in Nigerian courts and, according to her, through international channels, the Aisha Achimugu EFCC dispute remains a closely watched case involving allegations of financial crime, asset forfeiture, individual rights and the wider question of how Nigeria balances the fight against corruption with investor confidence and due process.

For now, the outcome of the various legal proceedings will determine whether the allegations against Achimugu translate into criminal liability or whether her challenges to the EFCC’s actions ultimately prevail.