President Bola Tinubu’s extraordinary intervention in the freezing of an Osun State Government account by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has brought into sharp relief a question that has increasingly shadowed his presidency: who exactly acts in the President’s name, and how much of what is done around him carries his prior knowledge and approval?
The EFCC had secured a court order restricting withdrawals from an Osun State statutory allocation account as part of an investigation into the alleged fraudulent handling of about N11 billion in Ecology Funds, Intervention Funds and FAAC allocations. Coming barely days before the August 15 governorship election, however, the action inevitably acquired a political colour.
Tinubu apparently recognised the danger. In a personally signed statement, he directed the EFCC to return to court immediately to vacate the order. He said he was “deeply embarrassed”, not by the commission performing its statutory duty, but by the timing of the action, and stressed that no federal institution should create the impression that Abuja was trying to influence the Osun election.
That distinction is important. The President did not absolve Governor Ademola Adeleke’s administration of any allegation under investigation. Neither did he order the EFCC to abandon its statutory responsibilities. What he did was insist that law enforcement must not become indistinguishable from partisan warfare.
In the circumstances, it was the correct intervention.
Osun is particularly sensitive terrain for Tinubu. The state is one where his APC has suffered two politically significant defeats in recent years. Adeleke defeated incumbent APC Governor Gboyega Oyetola in 2022, polling 403,371 votes against Oyetola’s 375,027. Months later, in the 2023 presidential election, Tinubu lost Osun to the PDP’s Atiku Abubakar, who polled 354,366 votes against Tinubu’s 343,945.
The political confrontation therefore has history behind it.
It became even more complicated by the crisis within the PDP and Adeleke’s flirtation with the APC. Adeleke’s camp has publicly maintained that he did not reject an invitation to join the APC but that his movement was resisted by Oyetola and the Osun APC establishment. Adeleke eventually moved to Accord, on whose platform he is seeking re-election.
For some within the APC, the calculation may have appeared straightforward: with the PDP weakened and federal power behind the ruling party, Adeleke could be politically overwhelmed.
That calculation underestimates the governor.
Whatever assessment anyone makes of Adeleke’s record in office, he belongs to one of Nigeria’s most enduring political families. His father, Senator Raji Ayoola Adeleke, an ally of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, was elected to the Senate on the Unity Party of Nigeria platform during the Second Republic. His elder brother, Isiaka Adeleke, became Osun’s first civilian governor in 1992 and subsequently served twice in the Senate. Ademola himself represented Osun West in the Senate before becoming governor.
That is political infrastructure accumulated across generations.
Then there is the Adeleke family’s extraordinary cultural reach. Governor Adeleke’s nephew, Davido, is one of Africa’s most recognisable music stars and gives the family access to a youthful constituency that conventional politicians would pay heavily to cultivate. Celebrity cannot substitute for organisation or performance, but in a close election its mobilisation value should not be dismissed.
Tinubu’s intervention consequently does more than rescue Osun from a potentially destabilising confrontation days before an election. It also protects the President himself.
The more troubling question is how such a politically explosive action came to be taken at such a politically explosive moment before presidential intervention became necessary. The EFCC is an institution with statutory responsibilities and had obtained a court order. Yet the President’s public embarrassment over the timing raises legitimate questions about political judgment and coordination within the federal establishment.
It would be reckless to conclude, without evidence, that “rogue elements” deliberately engineered the affair in Tinubu’s name. But it is reasonable to ask whether officials around the presidency and federal institutions sufficiently appreciate that their actions can carry consequences for the President’s credibility.
Tinubu therefore has a larger assignment than merely extinguishing the Osun fire.
Where federal institutions repeatedly take controversial steps that force the President into public reversals or damage his political standing, he must establish who authorised what, on what information and with what appreciation of the consequences. Accountability cannot stop at correcting decisions after public outrage.
There is a biblical injunction in Proverbs 25:5: “Remove the wicked from the king’s presence, and his throne will be established through righteousness.” The principle remains relevant to political leadership. A ruler is ultimately judged not only by his intentions but also by the conduct of those exercising authority around him.
Tinubu has acted wisely in Osun by insisting that the August 15 election must not carry the stain of federal interference. The APC is entitled to campaign vigorously for Bola Oyebamiji. Adeleke is equally entitled to defend his mandate. The EFCC is entitled to investigate credible allegations. But the people of Osun alone must decide who governs them.
If Tinubu wants this intervention to count towards his legacy, he must go beyond Osun. He should ensure that nobody, whether political ally, presidential aide or federal official, can weaponise the enormous authority of the Nigerian state for partisan purposes.
The best “fix” for Osun is therefore not an APC victory or an Adeleke victory. It is a credible election whose outcome cannot reasonably be attributed to Abuja.
That would be a victory for Tinubu too.
The post Can Tinubu dvice Governors On What He Controls? By Emmanuel Aziken appeared first on Vanguard News.