The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) recently moved to secure the final forfeiture of $13 million claimed by Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, a firm linked to businesswoman Aisha Achimugu. This significant Oceangate forfeiture case update highlights the ongoing efforts by Nigerian authorities to combat financial crime and recover illicit funds. Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja has set March 25 for a crucial ruling following final submissions from both the EFCC and Oceangate’s legal teams, marking a pivotal moment in this high-profile investigation.
Last year, the court issued an interim forfeiture order for these funds, which the EFCC alleges are proceeds of unlawful activities. This order mandated a public notification for any interested party to contest why the money should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government. Oceangate subsequently filed an affidavit, asserting legitimate ownership and refuting the EFCC’s claims of illicit origins.
Oceangate maintained that the $13 million was legitimately sourced for the acquisition of interests in two specific oil licenses, PPL 302 and PPL 3007, which the company secured in 2024. This assertion directly challenges the EFCC’s narrative, emphasizing a legitimate business transaction rather than a case of financial misconduct. The firm claimed the funds were meant to cover its financial obligations for these petroleum prospecting licenses.
What are proceeds of unlawful activities EFCC defines as illegally obtained assets? Proceeds of unlawful activities refer to any property or financial gains derived directly or indirectly from criminal conduct, such as fraud, corruption, or money laundering. In Nigeria, the EFCC actively pursues the forfeiture of such assets to the government, disrupting illicit financial flows and recovering public funds.
The EFCC, in its detailed response to Oceangate’s affidavit, presented findings from its investigation, asserting that the $13 million indeed originated from unlawful sources. The commission further alleged that a portion of these funds was contributed by contractors engaged by the Lagos State Government, adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing Lagos State government contractors investigation.
The investigation also delved into Oceangate’s corporate structure, noting that Iliya Wakil, the deponent for Oceangate, was merely a nominal director with no shareholding, employed by Felak Concept Limited. This raises questions about the true operational control and ownership, drawing a subtle distinction that could be explored when considering Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas vs Felak in terms of corporate responsibility and legal standing.
The EFCC described Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Limited as a “briefcase/shell company,” allegedly created as a vehicle to hold petroleum-related assets procured with funds reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity. This characterization is central to the EFCC’s argument for final forfeiture and underscores the commission’s skepticism regarding the company’s stated purpose as a “professional oil and gas consortium.”
Delving deeper, the EFCC outlined how Oceangate acquired its two oil licenses, PPL 302 and PPL 3007, through a bid exercise in 2024. The Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) notified Oceangate of its winning bidder status in January 2025, detailing the conditions precedent for license issuance, which included a total financial obligation of $37,223,144.00 to the Federal Government. Understanding the intricacies of a Nigerian oil licensing guide 2026 would be crucial for any company operating in this sector.
The $13 million currently under forfeiture consideration was allegedly transferred to Oceangate’s Zenith Bank account in tranches by several entities: Ashrab Energy and Oil Services Ltd, Tripple A and Tee Oil Nig Ltd, Code Crafter Tech Ltd, Overcliffe Energy Solutions, and Prism 24 Oil and Gas. The EFCC posits that these companies had no legitimate investment or contractual relationship with Oceangate, making the nature of these transfers highly suspicious.
The EFCC further claimed that neither Oceangate nor its Group Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Aisha Achimugu Sulaiman, rendered any lawful services to these transferring companies that would justify such substantial payments. It was alleged that in a desperate attempt to legitimize these transactions, Oceangate, in concert with its GCEO, procured false proforma invoices and purported debt financing facilities from some of these companies, a critical element in the Aisha Achimugu latest news surrounding this case.
A significant part of the EFCC’s case revolves around the alleged cash collection of huge sums of US dollars by Suleiman Muhammed Chiroma and his associates, bypassing financial institutions. These funds, including $9 million in cash, were purportedly used for signature bonuses for the oil blocks. This illustrates how does asset forfeiture work in Nigeria when dealing with complex financial networks and attempts to obscure money trails. Furthermore, the EFCC detailed how funds from Lagos State Government contractors, totaling over N2.4 billion, were received by Ashrab Energy and Oil Services Limited and subsequently converted to USD and transferred to Oceangate for the oil block payments.
The commission also challenged Oceangate’s audit report, noting that its author admitted to not reviewing Oceangate’s account statements and confirming that the company had not actively earned from oil and gas exploration. Crucially, Oceangate’s CEO, Aisha Achimugu, reportedly admitted in her extra-judicial statement to having significant control over the company and stated that Oceangate does not currently undertake contracts in either the private or public sector. This information is vital for understanding the broader asset forfeiture laws Nigeria 2026 as they apply to corporate entities.
The distinction between interim forfeiture vs final forfeiture Nigeria is central here, as the court initially granted an interim order, allowing time for interested parties to show cause. The current motion seeks to convert this temporary measure into a permanent one, thereby vesting the $13 million permanently with the Federal Government of Nigeria, concluding a lengthy legal process.
In urging the court for a final forfeiture order, the EFCC reiterated that the funds used by Oceangate for the oil block signature bonuses are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity, with direct links to monies transferred by the Lagos State Government to contractors for state projects. This intricate case serves as a crucial EFCC forfeiture guide for businesses Nigeria by demonstrating the commission’s vigilance against financial malfeasance and its determination to recover assets. The upcoming ruling will be a pivotal moment in this high-profile Oceangate forfeiture case update, setting a precedent for similar financial crime investigations and influencing future judicial interpretations of asset recovery efforts in the nation.
