Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja has officially ordered eight central commercial banks to unfreeze 13 bank accounts, including some linked to the FCT Investment Promotion Agency and the United Nations Youth Global Foundation.
This order brings to an end a two-year saga for these account holders, who have been under a complete financial freeze. But the most interesting part of this story isn’t just that the accounts were unfrozen. It’s how they were frozen, and why they were suddenly released. This case is a fascinating window into one of the most potent and controversial tools in the Nigerian justice system.
Step 1: The “Digital Chokehold”
Let’s rewind to 2022. The Inspector-General of Police (IGP) was investigating a major case: “obtaining money by false pretence, criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation, and cheating.”
To stop the suspects from moving the money, the police used a powerful legal weapon: an ex parte motion.
- What’s an ex parte motion? It’s a legal manoeuvre where one party (in this case, the police) goes to a judge to ask for an order without the other party (the account holder) being present or even knowing about it. It’s a one-sided request, designed for speed and surprise.
The police got the order, and the banks were instructed to place a “Post-No-Debit” (PND) restriction on the 13 accounts.
- What’s a PND? This is the “digital chokehold.” It doesn’t mean the government seizes the money. It means the account is frozen solid. Money can still come in, but not a single kobo can go out. No transfers, no ATM withdrawals, no bill payments. It completely paralyses the account holder’s personal or business finances.
For two years, these accounts were locked down, with the police arguing it was necessary to “prevent further withdrawal of funds by the suspects.”
Step 2: The “Concluded” Investigation… or Is It?
Now, we come to Wednesday’s hearing. The same party that requested the freeze, the IGP, came back to court. This time, counsel Wisdom Madaki filed a new ex parte motion. The request? Please unfreeze those 13 accounts.
The official reason, according to the motion, was that the “police investigation into the accounts has since been concluded.” A police officer even deposed in a sworn statement that the “suspect” under investigation had confessed to the allegations of misappropriation.
This all seems straightforward. Case closed, right? But this is where the story gets strange. At the very same hearing, the IGP’s lawyer, Mr Madaki, gave a completely different and contradictory reason. He argued that lifting the PND restrictions would “enable the IGP to carry out a just and discreet investigation into the activities of the respondents.”
So, which is it? Has the investigation concluded, or is unfreezing the money needed to continue it? It’s a direct contradiction that opens up the real story.
Step 3: The “Aha!” Moment – It’s About Settlement
This confusing logic is a big clue. It suggests the PND isn’t just an investigative step; it’s a powerful tool for leverage.
The backstory you found from just last month (September 2024) gives us the answer. In that case (FHC/ABJ/CS/852/2024), the same thing happened.
- The IGP froze accounts for a ₦150 million forex fraud.
- The investigation “concluded.”
- The IGP came back to court to unfreeze the accounts.
But in that case, the police gave the real reason: the investigation was over because “the parties had resolved to settle the matter outside of court.” This is the missing link.
The PND is the ultimate pressure point. By freezing all of a person’s or a company’s money, the police can bring them to the negotiating table. The “investigation” is often a negotiation to get the suspect to “confess” (like in this new case) or “settle” and return the stolen funds (like in the September case).
Once that goal is achieved, the money is returned, or a settlement is agreed upon, the investigation is “concluded.” The police have what they want, and the PND is no longer needed.
This explains the lawyer’s strange contradiction. The “investigation” (the hunt for a confession or settlement) is over, but the “investigation” (the formal case file) might still be open.
What we just saw in court wasn’t just a simple administrative order. It was the final, public step in a long, high-stakes financial negotiation, one where the police used the court’s power to “hack” the financial system and force a conclusion.
