The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by businesswoman Aisha Achimugu against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Achimugu had challenged the commission’s search of her residence and the seizure of her vehicles, jewellery and other belongings, asking the court to determine whether the actions were within the EFCC’s statutory powers.
She also sought to enforce her fundamental right to privacy and obtain an order restraining the commission from threatening, harassing or unlawfully entering her private residence.
The businesswoman demanded ₦10bn in damages, alleging that the EFCC had invaded her privacy.
Delivering judgment on Monday, October 12, 2026, Justice Musa Liman ruled that the commission was empowered to search Achimugu’s residence after receiving intelligence about alleged criminal activities.
“The EFCC has the right to search the residence,” the judge said.
The court further held that Achimugu and her legal team had failed to establish sufficient grounds to support the ₦10bn damages claim against the commission.
Justice Liman consequently dismissed the claim for damages, ruling that there was no justification for preventing the EFCC from performing its statutory duties.
The judge described the suit as lacking merit, ruling that it was “frivolous and it was brought in bad faith”.
The EFCC welcomed the ruling, describing it as being in the interest of justice and characterising the suit as an attempt to waste the court’s time.
In a related development, Justice Jude Onwugbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Apo, Abuja, ordered the final forfeiture of assets worth approximately ₦8.9bn linked to Achimugu to the Federal Government in July 2026.
The forfeited assets included jewellery valued at ₦4.65bn, 11 luxury vehicles worth ₦4.29bn, $50,000 and ₦30m in cash.
Justice Onwugbuzie issued the order while delivering judgment on an application filed by the EFCC seeking the permanent forfeiture of the assets.
The commission had urged the court to forfeit the properties permanently to the Federal Government, arguing that they were linked to unlawful activities.