Court of Appeal rejects ARA's bid to freeze Sonko's millions

The Assets Recovery Agency was seeking to have the Court of Appeal judges pause the High Court’s earlier decision that dismissed its case and declined to forfeit Sonko’s money to the State. However, the Court of Appeal found a fundamental flaw in that request.

The judges made it clear that you cannot “pause” a judgment that does not order anything to be done.

In rejecting the application, the Court also questioned the applicant’s reliance on Section 97 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), observing that if the provision automatically preserved the orders in question, then the application for stay would have been unnecessary.

Citing long-standing legal precedent, the court emphasised that a dismissed case is a “negative order.” It further noted that negative orders cannot be stayed and that the only enforceable aspect would be costs, not the substance of the case.

Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated January 22, 2026, was found to lack merit.