High Court Refuses Full Unfreezing of Yusuf Investments Accounts in Amaryllis Hotel Dispute, Citing Ongoing ACB Investigation

The High Court (Financial Crimes Division) has dismissed an application by Yusuf Investments Limited seeking to fully unfreeze bank accounts linked to the controversial purchase of the Amaryllis Hotel by the Public Service Pension Trust Fund (PSPTF), in a ruling that keeps key funds under restriction as investigations continue. The matter, heard under Miscellaneous Application No. Kapindu, who maintained that lifting the restrictions entirely would risk undermining ongoing investigations by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA).

In his ruling, Justice Kapindu observed that many African economies continue to lose substantial amounts of money through financial crimes and illicit financial flows, stressing the importance of allowing investigative agencies sufficient space to follow suspicious transactions. The case centres on the PSPTF, a statutory pension fund responsible for safeguarding retirement savings of public servants, and its acquisition of the Amaryllis Hotel from Yusuf Investments. The court noted that the transaction had generated significant public concern, particularly given its scale and implications for pension funds.

Court documents show that between 12 and 22 January 2026, Yusuf Investments received MK90.125 billion from the PSPTF for the hotel transaction. Investigators from the ACB flagged a series of subsequent transactions as suspicious, including: Authorities argued that the rapid movement of funds raised red flags, prompting the issuance of Restriction Notices in March 2026 to prevent possible dissipation of assets while investigations into alleged money laundering and corruption continue. Yusuf Investments, through its lawyer Gabriel Kambale, argued that the account freezes amounted to “commercial strangulation” and accused the state of overreach.

[paywall]

The company’s Chief Executive Officer, Yusuf Shiraz Yusuf, told the court that the restrictions were severely affecting operations at the five-star hotel and putting approximately 195 employees at risk. Despite these arguments, the court declined to fully lift the restrictions. However, it allowed limited access to two operational accounts to ensure the continued functioning of the hotel business.

The main accounts holding the bulk of the disputed funds remain frozen. Justice Kapindu rejected claims that the restrictions amounted to arbitrary deprivation of property, emphasizing the need to balance commercial interests with public accountability. “The rule of law will not thrive in this country if courts are all too eager to quickly stop investigative agencies in their investigative tracks,” the judge said, underscoring the importance of allowing the ACB to complete its work.

[/paywall]