N941 million forfeiture: 70 Nigerians accuse ICPC of mixing up bank accounts

About 70 Nigerians have urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside its N941 million final forfeiture order made on July 13, 2026, over an alleged bank account “mistake” made by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

This was disclosed in their motion on notice filed on July 16, 2026, by their lawyer, Abbas Ochogwu, Esq. and seen by Nairametrics.

Nairametrics reports that the legal development is linked to an alleged Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) payroll fraud investigation embarked upon by the ICPC since 2024.

What they are saying

The third parties/applicants, Oche Samuel, Kate Nkechinyere, Itodo Caroline and 67 others, through their counsel, Ochogwu, argued in the motion that although his clients were not joined as parties to the forfeiture suit instituted by the ICPC, their bank accounts were nevertheless recorded against “the names of unknown persons joined as respondents to the suit.”

• The motion cited Arilewola,Mr Olusanya Matthew (Access Bank/Acct: 0050850808), Adamu, Mr Nuhu (Zenith Bank/Acct: 2009139503), and 907 others as respondents in the ICPC case in which the forfeiture orders were made.

The lawyer also sought an order setting aside the restrictions placed on the bank accounts belonging to his clients (third-party applicants), which have remained frozen since November 2024 without any court order.

• He stated that rather than unfreezing the accounts of the third parties/applicants, the ICPC had instead “mistakenly recorded the third parties’ bank accounts against the names of some of the respondents who are not the owners of those accounts.”

He argued that the third parties/applicants were not given any opportunity to be heard on the ICPC’s motion on notice before the forfeiture orders affecting their bank accounts were made by the court.

Based on this, Ochogwu urged the court to agree that it lacked the competence and jurisdiction to hear and determine a case affecting the rights of his clients when they were not joined as parties to the case.

The lawyer argued that the development amounted to a breach of the third parties/applicants’ constitutional right to fair hearing, which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when the court made orders affecting the bank accounts of the third parties/applicants who were not parties to the suit.

• “It is within the competence of the Honourable Court to set aside the orders of forfeiture made by it in this case on the 13th of July, 2026, the same being a nullity,” he contended.

He stressed that the third parties/applicants were not under any form of investigation, as none of them had ever been arrested, investigated, interrogated or tried for any criminal offence to warrant the freezing orders made against their accounts.

ICPC counters motion

In ICPC’s process dated July 31, 2026, deposed to by David Nelson and seen by Nairametrics, the official stated that the investigation revealed that the names associated with the IPPIS payroll identities did not correspond with the persons controlling some of the recipient accounts.

• “The Applicant/Respondent did not determine ownership of the funds merely from the names appearing on the payroll; rather, the investigation considered the account numbers, transaction patterns, payroll records and payment history,” the official added.

He maintained that the third parties/applicants had the opportunity to obtain and present their own bank statements, employment records, payroll records and other documents showing the legitimate source of the funds when they chose not to appear before the final forfeiture order was made.

The official argued that the allegation that the ICPC refused to produce bank statements does not establish that the funds were legitimate or that the forfeiture order was improperly obtained.

• He further argued that the ICPC “did not deliberately list the account numbers against fictitious persons; rather, the names appearing in the investigation records represented the suspected payroll identities connected with the IPPIS payments under investigation, and the account numbers were separately identified because they represented the specific property traced during the investigation.”

The ICPC maintained that its investigation disclosed that the affected accounts allegedly received IPPIS salary credits under payroll identities different from the names of the account holders.

The official urged the court to hold that the third parties’ application was an attempt to reopen a concluded proceeding after final judgment had been delivered.

Backstory

Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, issued a final forfeiture order over N941,994,079.86 linked to suspected ghost workers in an application filed by the ICPC, according to a statement issued by the Commission.

Evidence presented before the court included IPPIS numbers, the names of the purported workers and the banking details of the said beneficiaries, according to the ICPC’s statement.

With the instant motion filed by the 70 Nigerians and a formal response by the ICPC, issues have been joined pending the Federal High Court’s determination.

Nairametrics gathered that a date is yet to be fixed for the determination of the third parties’ motion.

What you should know

The litigation stemmed from years of the Federal Government’s efforts to crack down on ghost workers.

The Federal Government began implementing the IPPIS in 2007 to enhance transparency, accuracy, security and reliability in the management of personnel records.

In 2023, the Federal Government announced that it would delist unverified civil servants from its payroll following the IPPIS verification exercise.

The ICPC had announced that it identified suspected ghost workers across several federal ministries and agencies during the investigative exercise.

Meanwhile, the court has had to review its verdicts on monetary matters, especially where material facts were suppressed.

In August 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja, per Justice Emeka Nwite, lifted freezing orders (Post-No-Debit) made against the bank accounts of defendants linked to an alleged N21 billion system glitch in 2023, while faulting the police for suppressing material facts when it applied to freeze the affected accounts through an ex parte application.