President Bola Tinubu has directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to immediately approach the court to vacate the order freezing the accounts of the Osun State Government. The directive came amid intense controversy, with the President expressing deep concern regarding the timing of the enforcement action ahead of the upcoming Osun State governorship election. The President also placed a phone call to Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State to inform him of the directive issued to the anti-graft agency.
In a statement issued by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, President Tinubu clarified that while law enforcement agencies are expected to operate independently, the timing of the action was inappropriate given the political climate. The statement noted, “Since assuming office, I have consistently maintained that anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies must be allowed to discharge their statutory responsibilities independently, professionally, without fear or favour, or political interference,”. The President added, “Osun State is only a few days away from its gubernatorial election. Therefore, nothing ought to be done to give an impression that the EFCC or indeed any other agency of the Federal Government is being used to interfere with the election,”. He concluded, “Accordingly, I have directed the EFCC to immediately proceed to the court to vacate the order and discontinue whatever action it has instituted against the Osun State government in this regard,”.
Welcoming the presidential intervention, the Osun State Government described the development as a triumph for the rule of law. The State Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment, Kolapo Alimi, commended the President for acting on public feedback, stating, “We give kudos to the President for listening to voices of reason, what he has done is triumph for the rule of law. We also commend every democrat across the country for lending their voices against arbitariness.”
Rejecting claims by the EFCC that the accounts were restricted due to an investigation into the alleged diversion of N11,000,000,000 in ecological and intervention funds, Alimi insisted the action was politically motivated. Alimi stated, “The real reason the commission froze the state account on the order of a political party governorship candidate was to stop payment of palliatives which the state government promised the workers some months ago.” He maintained that the state does not loot public funds, noting, “We don’t loot public funds in Osun State, we deliver on public goods and services. There is no fund to loot in Osun State as the little resources we have are expended on the many mega projects, workers’ welfare and sectoral developments for the benefit of the masses. We reject attempts to tarnish the image of our hardworking governor.” He further alleged that “officials of the government are being harassed on a weekly basis with the sole aim of distracting them from delivering good governance to the Osun population.” Alimi described the explanations of the commission as an afterthought, adding, “It is sad that a commission will lie to destroy the image of a state to cover up an illegal action that has backfired,” and noting that “the alibi from the commission is an afterthought and it cannot stand the test of truth in reality and court of public opinion.”
Meanwhile, Governor Adeleke has filed a N2,000,000,000 lawsuit against the EFCC, its Chairman, and First Bank Nigeria Limited at the Federal High Court in Abuja, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1762/2026. Joined by the Attorney-General and Accountant-General of Osun State as co-plaintiffs, the suit challenges the legality of placing a post-no-debit order on the Federal Statutory Allocation Account of the state without due process and requests N2,000,000,000 in exemplary and aggravated damages.
The action of the commission drew sharp criticism from opposition leaders. Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, speaking through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, described the account freeze as a direct assault on democracy. Atiku stated, “It is impossible to ignore the implications of freezing a state’s principal operational account on the eve of a governorship election.” He added, “Such an action could disrupt governance, delay salary payments, impede essential public services and create an atmosphere of intimidation that has no place in a democratic society.” Atiku emphasized, “If there are legitimate concerns requiring investigation, the law provides due process.” He further remarked, “Anti-corruption agencies must not conduct themselves in a manner that creates the perception that they are being deployed to influence political outcomes or weaken elected governments at critical electoral moments.”
Atiku continued, “It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the pattern under the Tinubu administration, where opposition-controlled states appear to be the consistent targets of coercive federal actions.” He noted, “Coming after the prolonged denial of Osun State’s statutory local government allocations, this latest action reinforces the disturbing impression that public institutions are being weaponised to punish political opponents rather than serve the Nigerian people.” He warned, “Freezing the state’s allocation account is not merely an attack on the Osun State Government, it is a direct assault on the people of Osun State, whose salaries, essential public services and daily governance stand to suffer.” He added, “The anti-corruption mandate of the EFCC must never be distorted into a political weapon against opposition governments.” Atiku concluded, “The people of Osun State alone must determine the outcome of their election. No external force or institution of government should, by action or omission, cast a shadow over the credibility of that democratic choice.” He warned, “President Tinubu is leaving no one in doubt that he is determined to win elections at all costs. Democracy cannot coexist with the systematic weaponisation of state institutions against political opponents,”.
Similarly, the ADC through its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, argued that the directive exposed a lack of institutional independence within the anti-graft agency. Abdullahi stated, “If the President possesses the authority to direct the EFCC to withdraw from court proceedings because the political consequences may affect an election, then it follows that he possesses the authority to direct the commission in other operational matters as well.” He noted, “The net implication is that the carefully cultivated argument that these agencies operate entirely independently collapses under the weight of the President’s own statement.” Abdullahi added, “It is either the President was misinformed or he had chosen to misrepresent the facts. Either possibility is deeply disturbing.” He remarked, “Rather than demonstrating institutional independence, it confirms that the Presidency could whimsically intervene or direct one way or another based on political considerations.” He stressed, “This solo performance by the President actually exposes more than it was intended to conceal.” He noted that “It was the overwhelming condemnation from Nigerians, civil society, political parties, and the wider public who recognised the account freezing for what it was: an extraordinary abuse of state power meant to influence the outcome of the governorship election,”.
Also criticizing the development, an ADC House of Assembly candidate for Eti-Osa Constituency II in Lagos, Ayodele Adio, questioned claims regarding a court order. Adio stated, “There was no court order to vacate. More importantly, even if such an order existed, the EFCC has no legal authority to vacate or set aside a court order. Only a competent court can vary, discharge or vacate its own orders.” He asked, “What exactly is being presented to Nigerians? The rule of law cannot be replaced by public relations. Public institutions must operate within the limits of the law, not manufacture narratives that cannot withstand legal scrutiny,”.
Defending the agency prior to the presidential directive, EFCC spokesperson Wilson Uwujaren stated on Arise Television that the commission exercised its powers under Section 34 of the EFCC Act and Section 7, Sub-section 6 of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2022 to place a temporary 72-hour restriction on a specific account following suspicious financial movements. Uwujaren stated, “As we indicated in the statement released by the Commission, we took that step to preserve the account of the Osun State Government.” He explained, “We observed in the past one week that activities on that account looked suspicious, and based on the mandate of the commission, we took the step of placing a restriction on that account to preserve it.” He added, “That restriction order does not mean that all the accounts of Osun State have been frozen. No. It is just a targeted restriction on one account of the Osun State Government.”
Uwujaren further noted, “The essence, like I said, is just to preserve that account because we observed suspicious activities on that account in terms of the transfer of funds to a number of entities within one week.” He added, “So, we had to take that decision to place a restriction on that account, not minding the fact that there is an election process in place.” He asked, “We have the responsibility under the law to do so because if we don’t take that step and, for instance, funds are looted from the account of the Osun State government, I’m sure the Nigerian public will also ask, ‘Where was the EFCC when those funds were being moved?” He stated, “It does not stop the Osun State Government from running the government of the state because they have access to other funds in the other accounts that they have.” Uwujaren clarified, “In any case, the payment of salaries and other expenditures by the state government happens just once in a month. What we have done is not a blanket freezing of the account.” He added, “It’s just a targeted freezing. Once we are satisfied that activities on that account are no longer suspicious, it will be lifted.” He noted, “A number of people have asked whether the commission has the power to do so under the law. I can assure you that we have the power to place a temporary restriction on an account.” He pointed out that “Section 34 of the EFCC Act and Section 7, Sub-section 6 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2022 give us that authority to take that step.” He concluded, “The restriction order can last within 72 hours before we can come with a court order if we need to provide a court order,”.
0 Comments