An Abuja High Court has ruled in favour of legal practitioner Dr Ted Iseghohi-Edwards in a dispute involving allegations of fraud over $159 million in professional fees connected to Nigeria’s London and Paris Club refunds.
Justice Suleiman Belgore of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Garki, delivered the judgment on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, declaring that the lawyer’s fundamental rights had been violated through his arrest, detention and threats of further prosecution.
The court also invalidated a 2024 investigation report by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which had accused Iseghohi-Edwards of fraudulent conduct in relation to payments for legal and consultancy services.
Court Rules in Favour of ALGON Lawyer
The judgment followed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Iseghohi-Edwards against the EFCC, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Inspector-General of Police and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The case, marked CV/2569/26, centred on allegations arising from the lawyer’s engagement by the Incorporated Trustees of the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON).
Iseghohi-Edwards had been retained to provide legal representation and consultancy services concerning the recovery of funds connected to Nigeria’s 774 local government councils.
After examining the evidence, Justice Belgore granted 20 of the 21 reliefs requested by the applicant.
The judge held that the respondents had infringed his rights by pursuing criminal allegations concerning contractual and judicial matters that had already been determined by competent courts.
Judge Rejects EFCC’s 2024 Fraud Investigation Report
A major issue in the proceedings was an EFCC report dated August 14, 2024, which accused Iseghohi-Edwards of wrongdoing in connection with the London and Paris Club refund payments.
The document, identified by reference number EFCC/EC/AGF/07/VOL.1/70, was prepared following a request for an investigation into the refund controversy.
Justice Belgore criticised the report, finding that it lacked sufficient investigative substance and conflicted with earlier findings by security agencies.
According to the judgment, investigations conducted by the EFCC and the Department of State Services (DSS) in 2016 had not established fraud or criminal wrongdoing against the lawyer.
The judge concluded that the subsequent EFCC report was an improper attempt to discredit Iseghohi-Edwards and ordered that it be declared invalid.
Court Upholds $159 Million Professional Fee Arrangement
The dispute also involved a $159 million professional fee claim arising from legal and consultancy services provided to ALGON and the country’s local government councils.
The court examined contractual documents and previous judgments presented as evidence of the agreement between Iseghohi-Edwards and ALGON.
Justice Belgore found that the parties had negotiated the terms of their engagement and subsequently revised those arrangements during court proceedings on September 15, 2016.
The payment arrangement involved 10 promissory notes, each valued at $15.9 million, bringing the total to $159 million.
The judge held that the promissory notes had been authorised by former President Muhammadu Buhari in accordance with an existing Federal High Court order.
He also rejected attempts by government agencies to question the validity of the judicial decisions underpinning the payment arrangement.
Court Restrains EFCC and Other Government Agencies
Justice Belgore issued a perpetual injunction restricting the respondents and their agents from taking further coercive action against Iseghohi-Edwards over the same London and Paris Club refund dispute.
The order covered further invitations, harassment, arrests, detention and prosecution relating to the matters addressed in the judgment.
The court also restrained the respondents from treating existing judgments of competent courts as fraudulent through investigations that improperly challenged their legal validity.
Justice Belgore maintained that government agencies could not disregard binding judicial decisions by reopening issues already settled through the courts.
The injunction was issued in connection with the specific dispute and conduct examined in the proceedings.
EFCC Lawyer Explains Circumstances Behind Disputed Report
During the proceedings, EFCC counsel L. P. Apo explained the circumstances surrounding the commission’s 2024 investigation report.
According to the account presented in court, the report followed developments involving legal proceedings initiated by Iseghohi-Edwards against the Federal Government in the United States.
Those proceedings concerned efforts to dematerialise the promissory notes connected to the professional fee claim.
Apo said the situation became more complicated after the lawyer assigned the promissory notes to third parties in the United States, raising the possibility of further legal action against the Nigerian government.
He also attributed the preparation of the disputed report to pressure from higher authorities.
Following the judgment, Apo commended the court for the work involved in reaching its decision.
Lawyer Calls on Government to Respect Court Judgments
Reacting to the ruling, counsel to Iseghohi-Edwards, Idumodin Ogumu, welcomed the decision and urged public institutions to comply with judicial orders.
Ogumu emphasised the importance of respecting court judgments and protecting the rights of individuals involved in disputes with government agencies.
The ruling represents a significant development in the longstanding legal controversy surrounding consultancy payments connected to the London and Paris Club refunds.
Background: How the Paris Club Refund Dispute Began
The London and Paris Club refund controversy originated from deductions made from Nigerian states’ and local governments’ statutory allocations between 1995 and 2002.
The deductions were connected to the servicing of external debts, but subsequent reviews raised questions about whether some amounts had been excessively deducted.
Efforts to recover the funds led to the involvement of consultants, legal practitioners and other intermediaries.
Disagreements later emerged over consultancy fees, payment arrangements and the legality of certain financial obligations.
These disputes resulted in investigations, litigation and continuing controversy over the handling of public funds.
Iseghohi-Edwards’ case concerns the professional fees claimed for services rendered to ALGON and the 774 local government councils.
The October 20 judgment addresses the allegations and enforcement actions challenged by the lawyer, as well as the validity of the payment documents considered by the court.
