• Aisha Achimugu has denied reports that $13 million was found in her home during an EFCC raid
• She said only $50,000 and N13 million were recovered from the property and the naira found belonged to her mother
• Aisha also declined to discuss the $13 million forfeiture in detail, citing ongoing court proceedings

Businesswoman Aisha Achimugu has pushed back against reports that $13 million was recovered from her residence during a raid by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, insisting that the actual amount found was far less.

Speaking during an interview on Channels Television on Monday, April 27, Achimugu said EFCC operatives recovered only $50,000 and N13 million from her home, not the widely reported $13 million.

Her comments come amid an ongoing legal dispute with the anti-graft agency, which declared her wanted last year over allegations of criminal conspiracy and money laundering.

In March, a Federal High Court in Abuja upheld the final forfeiture of $13 million linked to her company, Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Ltd, to the Federal Government.

The EFCC had alleged that Oceangate worked with unlicensed Bureau de Change operators and bank officials to obtain the cash, which it claimed was suspected proceeds of unlawful activity.

According to the commission, the funds were used to pay signature bonuses on two oil blocks acquired in 2024.

Addressing the controversy, Achimugu said she would not comment extensively on the $13 million because the matter remains before the court.

She said, “First, I won’t go so much into the detail of $13 million. As you know, it’s a matter in court. It will be prejudice for me to talk about, you know, what’s already in court. And I still believe strongly in our judicial system in Nigeria. So I know that the right decisions will be made at the due time.

“But let me also correct an impression that $13 million was not found in my house when my house was raided.

“My house was raided, yes, but only $50,000 and N13 million naira belonging to my mom was found in my house, and then again, my personal belonging.

“I don’t know where Nigerians got the impression that I had $13 million in my house. I’m not a bank, so I won’t keep $13 million in my house. I have kids who go to school abroad, so it’s important that you have those currencies kept away for emergencies.”

Achimugu also challenged information published on the EFCC’s website, arguing that she did not regard it as a valid legal document.

She said, “Let me also correct that what is published on the website of EFCC is certain state. I want to believe that it is not Lagos state because the state was not clear. So it’s what is out there. So I won’t also, you know, entertain that it is Lagos because that hasn’t been thrown at me.”

On the controversy surrounding Oceangate’s acquisition of the oil blocks in question, Achimugu said the company followed due process and emerged successful through the Federal Government’s licensing rounds.

According to her, Oceangate took part in two separate bid rounds, one for deep offshore assets between 2022 and 2023, and a mini bid round between 2023 and 2024.

She said, “We went through that process and by the grace of God we won the process very transparently. It was a public process, it wasn’t selective.”

Her remarks add a fresh layer to the controversy surrounding the ongoing money laundering case, as legal scrutiny continues over both the disputed funds and Oceangate’s oil block acquisitions.

Malami challenges EFCC in Court over interim forfeiture of assets, denies wrongdoing

Meanwhile, TheRadar earlier reported that the Former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, had mounted a robust legal challenge against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the interim forfeiture of multiple properties, insisting that the assets were lawfully acquired and not proceeds of crime.

In an affidavit submitted before the Federal High Court in Abuja, Malami rejected allegations that the properties listed in a January 2026 forfeiture order were linked to illicit funds. The document formed part of his formal response to the EFCC’s action, which was based on suspicions of financial misconduct.

Malami argued that the commission failed to present any prima facie evidence directly connecting the properties to criminal activity.