The Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) was created to clean up the country’s banking system by acquiring non-performing loans. However, its aggressive debt recovery tactics have often led to contentious legal battles, putting the spotlight on due process, property rights, and the rule of law. A recent landmark case involving a property sale to comedian AliBaba isn’t just a one-off, it’s part of a bigger pattern of legal showdowns.
In a highly publicized case, a property at 324A Akin Ogunlewe Street in Victoria Island, Lagos, was at the center of a legal storm. AMCON sold the property, originally owned by Harold Expansion Industries, to comedian Ali Baba for ₦220 million in 2021 to settle a ₦617 million debt.
The problem is that the sale happened while a court order was in place, directing AMCON to preserve the property pending the outcome of the case. In July 2025, the Federal High Court sided with the original owners. Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa ruled that AMCON failed to provide crucial evidence, like the defendant’s statement of account, to back up its claim. The court not only reversed the sale but also hit AMCON with ₦500 million in damages. On August 28, 2025, court bailiffs evicted AliBaba, and the property was returned to its original owners.
More Contested Cases: A Broader Look The AliBaba case is just one of many. Across Nigeria, AMCON’s actions have faced similar legal challenges.
The Suru Worldwide Ventures Case: A high-profile example involves a ₦24.6 billion disputed debt between Suru Worldwide Ventures and Ecobank. AMCON, in its debt recovery efforts, took over the Best Western Hotel in Ikeja. However, the takeover was based on a court order that was later set aside on appeal. The legal battles spanned years, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling that dismissed AMCON’s appeal. The outcome? Suru Worldwide Ventures has since demanded over ₦23 billion in damages from AMCON for the alleged unlawful seizure and occupation of its hotel.
The M.T.N. Property Management Case: The legal dispute over Victory Park Estate in Lekki, Lagos, shows how complex these cases can get. AMCON claimed to have seized a portion of the estate based on a court judgment. However, landowners who had purchased plots from the original owner alleged that AMCON’s seizure went beyond the court order, leading to multiple lawsuits. This case highlights a critical issue: innocent third-party buyers can get caught in the middle of these high-stakes disputes.
The Deap Capital Management Case: While many cases end in setbacks for AMCON, some have been successful. In the case of a ₦1.6 billion debt owed by Deap Capital Management, AMCON secured a court order to attach and sell properties belonging to the company’s promoter. This shows that when AMCON follows the legal process and can prove its claims, the courts will often support its recovery efforts.
These cases underscore a crucial point: AMCON’s extensive powers do not override the judiciary. The courts are holding AMCON accountable, demanding that it follows the rule of law, respects existing court orders, and provides sufficient evidence to support its claims.
For businesses and property owners, this trend offers a glimmer of hope. It signals that even in the face of AMCON’s power, there are legal avenues to challenge its actions and seek justice. While AMCON’s mandate is vital for Nigeria’s financial stability, its operations must be conducted with integrity and respect for due process to maintain public trust and avoid costly legal reversals.
The recurring theme across these cases is the legal and reputational risk AMCON faces when its enforcement actions are challenged. The outcomes of the AliBaba and Suru Worldwide cases, where court rulings have reversed seizures and ordered significant damages, suggest that the judiciary is increasingly scrutinizing AMCON’s adherence to due process and the rule of law, pushing back against what some critics describe as aggressive and extrajudicial recovery tactics.