Court Dismisses Aisha Achimugu’s ₦10bn Fundamental Rights Suit Against EFCC

Davidson Ogbebor

ABUJA — The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Abuja-based businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu, against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the search of her residence and the seizure of her vehicles, jewellery and other personal belongings.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/466/2026, sought a determination of whether the anti-graft agency acted within its statutory powers when it searched Achimugu’s residence and seized some of her properties.

Achimugu had also asked the court to enforce her fundamental right to privacy and restrain the EFCC from allegedly threatening, harassing or invading her private residence.

As part of her claims, the businesswoman sought ₦10 billion in damages against the commission, alleging that its actions amounted to an invasion of her privacy.

Delivering judgment on Monday, October 12, 2026, Justice Musa Liman held that the EFCC had the authority to search the plaintiff’s residence upon receiving intelligence concerning alleged criminal activities.

The judge reportedly maintained that the commission was empowered to conduct the search in the discharge of its statutory responsibilities.

The court also rejected Achimugu’s demand for ₦10 billion in compensation, holding that she and her legal representatives had failed to establish sufficient grounds to justify the damages sought.

Consequently, Justice Liman dismissed the suit for lacking merit, reportedly describing the action as frivolous and brought in bad faith.

Reacting to the judgment, counsel to the EFCC, Emenike Mgbemele, welcomed the decision, describing it as being in the interest of justice. He also argued that the suit was an attempt to waste the court’s time.

The ruling represents a legal victory for the EFCC in the dispute over the search of Achimugu’s residence and the seizure of her belongings. However, the dismissal of the fundamental rights suit should not, by itself, be interpreted as a criminal conviction against the businesswoman.

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.