The battle over 13 million dollars allegedly linked to suspicious oil block payments has moved to a decisive stage at the Federal High Court in Abuja, where the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC is asking for a final forfeiture order against funds traced to Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Limited, a company associated with prominent businesswoman Aisha Achimugu.

The anti-graft agency insists the money is the proceeds of unlawful activity and should be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government. Oceangate and Achimugu, however, are pushing back, arguing that the funds are legitimate and that the EFCC is mischaracterising both the company and its transactions.

The case stems from Nigeria’s oil licensing bid rounds, in which Oceangate participated for two petroleum prospecting licences, Deep Offshore PPL 302 and Shallow Water PPL 3007. According to court filings, Oceangate was incorporated in February 2005 and later emerged as a successful bidder in the 2024 licensing exercise conducted by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission.

Investigators say that success came with a heavy financial obligation. In an affidavit before the court, EFCC investigator Usman Aliyu stated that Oceangate’s total financial commitment to the Federal Government, primarily in the form of signature bonuses for the oil blocks, stood at 37,223,144 dollars. To meet this obligation, the company allegedly made a series of substantial foreign currency payments through its Nigerian bank accounts.

Aliyu told the court that Oceangate made several dollar-denominated payments from its Zenith Bank account, while Providus Bank later transferred 7 million dollars to the Federal Government on the company’s behalf. Between March 20 and April 3, 2025, he said, Oceangate paid a total of 20 million dollars to the government in connection with the two oil blocks.

The EFCC’s case does not challenge the fact of payment, but the origin of a significant portion of the funds. The commission alleges that in order to raise the required signature bonuses, Oceangate turned to unregulated cash channels and illicit sources, conspiring with unlicensed Bureau de Change operators and complicit bank officials to move 13 million dollars outside the formal financial system.

Aliyu alleged that one Suleiman Muhammed Chiroma was “procured and aided” by Oceangate to collect 13 million dollars in cash through his associates in Abuja and Lagos, without passing the funds through any financial institution. The money, he said, was then used to meet the company’s obligations for the oil block signatures.

The investigator further claimed that Chiroma, acting in concert with Oceangate, engaged two other figures, Dantani Abubakar Hassan of Ashrab Energy and Oil Services Limited and Tirmizi Muhammed Usman of Tripple A and Tee Oil Nigeria Limited, to collect 9 million dollars in cash, again outside the banking system, for the same purpose.

Beyond the alleged cash movements, the EFCC says it traced funds from Lagos State government contractors into accounts linked to Ashrab Energy at Zenith Bank and Access Bank. Those funds were allegedly converted into dollars and then channelled to Oceangate to support its oil block payments. On the basis of these findings, Aliyu concluded that the 13 million dollars in dispute “were not proceeds of any lawful and legitimate business of Oceangate but rather represent funds reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity.”

Acting on the EFCC’s ex parte application, Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court had earlier granted an interim forfeiture order over the 13 million dollars. The court directed the commission to publish the order in a national newspaper, inviting any interested parties to appear and show cause why the funds should not be permanently forfeited to the state.

Oceangate responded by filing a counter-affidavit, challenging both the interim order and the EFCC’s narrative. In the company’s deposition, director Iliya Wakil urged the court to set aside the interim forfeiture, insisting that the funds in question were derived from legitimate sources, including earnings and gifts to the company’s Group Chief Executive Officer, Aisha Achimugu.

Wakil denied any conspiracy with unlicensed Bureau de Change operators and rejected the EFCC’s portrayal of Chiroma as an illicit cash courier. According to him, Chiroma was a licensed BDC operator lawfully engaged by Oceangate to handle foreign exchange transactions. He further maintained that Oceangate had no dealings with Hassan, Ashrab Energy, Usman or Tripple A and Tee Oil Nigeria Limited, contrary to the EFCC’s claims.

The company also relied on an audit report to support its position that its finances were in order and that the funds used for the oil block payments were traceable to legitimate business activities. It argued that the EFCC was attempting to criminalise standard commercial arrangements in the oil and gas sector and to punish a company that had complied with the government’s own licensing framework.

The EFCC, in its reply, moved to discredit both Oceangate’s corporate structure and its evidence. The commission described Wakil as a nominal director acting on the instructions of Achimugu, whom it portrayed as the true beneficial owner and decision-maker behind the company. Aliyu alleged that Wakil himself admitted to drawing a salary from another Achimugu-owned firm, reinforcing the EFCC’s claim that Oceangate was little more than a vehicle for holding petroleum assets acquired with tainted funds.

In a pointed rebuke of the company’s public image, Aliyu told the court that describing Oceangate as “a professional oil and gas consortium, operating in diverse sectors of the oil and gas sectors of the Nigerian economy” was akin to “describing the devil as an angel of light.” He said the company did not currently execute contracts and had never carried out any contract in either the public or private sector, undermining its claim to have generated substantial legitimate earnings.

The EFCC also attacked the credibility of the audit report tendered by Oceangate, stating that the auditor admitted he had not examined the company’s bank statements. For the commission, this omission rendered the report unreliable as proof of the lawful origin of the 13 million dollars.

At the latest hearing, counsel for the EFCC, Federal Director of Public Prosecutions Rotimi Oyedepo SAN, and Oceangate’s lawyer, Darlington Ozurumba, adopted their written addresses and presented oral arguments for and against the application for final forfeiture. While the EFCC pressed the court to confirm the interim order and permanently transfer the funds to the Federal Government, Oceangate urged the judge to discharge the order and return the money, insisting that no crime had been established.

The case is unfolding against the backdrop of a broader crackdown on alleged illicit financial flows in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, particularly around signature bonuses and licensing rounds. The EFCC has increasingly targeted companies and individuals suspected of using shell entities, politically exposed networks and informal cash channels to secure lucrative upstream assets.

In a related strand of the wider investigation, the court had earlier ordered the final forfeiture of 7 million dollars linked to Providus Bank after no claimant came forward. That decision was later challenged by Felak Concept Group Limited, which denied that the funds were abandoned or illicit, underscoring the complexity and high stakes of the EFCC’s current enforcement drive.