Businesswoman Aisha Achimugu denies a report that $13m was found in her home, saying officials recovered $50,000 and N13m instead. The dispute ties to an EFCC forfeiture case involving Oceangate Engineering.
A businesswoman at the center of an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission probe has pushed back hard on claims that $13 million was recovered from her residence during a raid.
Aisha Achimugu, in an interview with Misryoum, said the amounts actually found were $50,000 and N13 million naira, adding that the larger $13 million figure was incorrect and should not be treated as settled while the matter remains before the courts.. She also used the opportunity to address how the public impression formed around the figures.
Misryoum reports that the EFCC declared Achimugu wanted last year over alleged criminal conspiracy and money laundering.. The commission’s case, according to court outcomes referenced in the dispute, is linked to the final forfeiture of $13 million that a Federal High Court in Abuja upheld in March.. That forfeiture, tied to her company, Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Ltd, was presented as funds connected to alleged wrongdoing.
The EFCC previously said Oceangate conspired with unlicensed Bureau de Change operators and bank officials to source cash—described as suspected proceeds of unlawful activity—for payments described as signature bonuses on two oil blocks acquired in 2024.
When asked directly about the $13 million claim, Achimugu told Misryoum that discussing the detailed figures could prejudice the ongoing legal process.. She emphasized her view that the judiciary would arrive at the appropriate decision at the right time, while still insisting that the public report was wrong about what was recovered.
She said her home was indeed raided, but that only $50,000 and N13 million belonging to her mother were found, alongside her personal belongings.. Achimugu also argued that people had assumed she kept a very large amount at home.. Her position was blunt: she is not a bank, and she said the practical reality for her household—raising children who study abroad—requires holding certain currencies for emergencies rather than large sums.
Beyond the dollar figure, Achimugu also challenged another part of the controversy: a statement said to have been published on the EFCC’s website.. She argued that what was published was not a valid legal document and further disputed the clarity of the location attributed in the statement, saying she would not accept that the raid happened in Lagos where the reference lacked clear state identification.
Her comments also returned to the broader dispute over Oceangate’s oil assets.. Achimugu said the company obtained the contested blocks through participation in the Federal Government’s oil licensing process, describing two rounds: one involving deep offshore bids between 2022 and 2023, and another mini bid round covering 2023 to 2024.. She said Oceangate emerged successful through what she characterized as a transparent public process rather than selective treatment.
For readers, the difference between “what was found during a raid” and “what was forfeited by a court” matters, even when the numbers appear to overlap in public discussion.. A forfeiture can relate to funds tied to an allegation of origin, while a raid outcome reflects what investigators and operatives physically recover at a specific time and location.. When these are merged in headlines, it can create confusion about what the law has decided versus what was physically discovered.
There is also a human and reputational layer to this kind of dispute.. Achimugu’s explanation points to the way financial controversies can quickly become public narratives that linger longer than court schedules.. By correcting the figures and stressing that the matter is still in court, she is effectively trying to reframe the story away from a dramatic $13 million headline and toward a narrower claim about the actual sums recovered from her home.
At the same time, the EFCC’s argument remains centered on alleged laundering and criminal conspiracy around procurement of cash for oil-block signature bonuses.. That means the court process is likely to keep focusing on how the funds were sourced and handled—not only on whether a specific amount was present in a private residence.
As the case continues, Misryoum expects the next stage to hinge on how the court weighs evidence tied to Oceangate, the alleged participants in the cash sourcing chain, and the legal basis for any continued challenges to the forfeiture outcome.. For Achimugu, the immediate goal is clearer: to correct the record in public about what was found, while leaving the larger legal question for the judiciary to determine.