The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, CISLAC, and Transparency International Nigeria have expressed concern over the implications of President Bola Tinubu’s direct intervention in the freezing of the accounts of the Osun State government by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, Executive Director, CISLAC, and Head of Transparency International Nigeria, in a statement on Friday, said the President’s direct instruction to the EFCC to seek the lifting of a court order raises serious questions about the operational independence of Nigeria’s foremost anti-corruption agencies and judiciary in Nigeria.
The CSOs insisted that EFCC acted within its mandate in freezing the state’s accounts.
Noting that the EFCC was established by law to investigate, prevent and prosecute economic and financial crimes, Rafsanjani stressed that its effectiveness depends considerably on its ability to discharge these responsibilities professionally, impartially and without political interference.
“If the freezing of the Osun State Government account was based on credible evidence that public funds were at risk of diversion, misappropriation or misuse, the appropriate response should have been to allow the law, the courts and the investigative process to take their course.
“Public money does not belong to any governor, political party or administration. It belongs to the citizens. Therefore, where an anti-corruption institution has reasonable grounds to believe that public resources are threatened, protecting such funds should ordinarily be regarded as part of its statutory responsibility,” he said.
Rafsanjani added that what is particularly troubling is the precedent created when the President can publicly direct an anti-corruption agency regarding a specific ongoing enforcement action.
“Even where the President’s intention may have been to prevent political abuse or protect essential government operations, such intervention can create the perception that anti-corruption investigations are subject to presidential control,” he said, nothing that such perception is damaging.
Warning that presidential intervention weakens institutional independence, Rafsanjani noted that the most important lesson from the controversy is the urgent need to strengthen the institutional independence of Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies.
According to him, an EFCC chairman should be capable of making lawful operational decisions and defending those decisions before the courts and the Nigerian public without waiting for political instructions from the Presidency.
“Likewise, where the EFCC makes a wrong or disproportionate decision, the proper institution to correct that decision should ordinarily be the judiciary through established legal procedures. The President should provide moral and policy support for the fight against corruption, ensure adequate funding and protect anti-corruption institutions from political interference. The President should not be seen to be directing individual investigations or enforcement decisions,” he added.
In the same vein, Rafsanjani noted that lifting restrictions on the account must not terminate any legitimate investigation. “If there is evidence of diversion or attempted diversion of public resources, those responsible must be investigated and prosecuted irrespective of political affiliation,” he insisted.
He asserted that the Federal Government must guarantee the operational independence of the EFCC, ICPC and other anti-corruption institutions, stressing that their investigative decisions should not depend upon presidential intervention.
Also, according to him, the National Assembly should strengthen legal safeguards protecting the leadership and operations of anti-corruption agencies from political interference while simultaneously improving mechanisms for accountability and judicial oversight.
“All political actors must refrain from turning anti-corruption institutions into instruments of electoral warfare. Nigeria needs institutions that are stronger than individuals. Whether the affected government belongs to the ruling party or the opposition should be irrelevant. Where public money is threatened, the law should protect it. Where an anti-corruption agency exceeds its authority, the courts should correct it.
“But when political authorities begin determining which specific enforcement actions an anti-corruption agency should pursue or reverse, the credibility and independence of the entire anti-corruption system are placed at risk,” the statement added.
Faulting Tinubu’s action, the CSOs said the EFCC deserve commendation, rather than condemnation, for acting in line with its mandate to freeze the accounts of the Osun State government.
Rafsanjani warned that the bank accounts of state governments can be emptied in 24 hours while court cases can take up to five years.
“If the EFCC waits for a final conviction before acting, there will be nothing left to recover. That is why the law anticipates this and empowers preventive action. We have it on good authority that the EFCC obtained an order of the Federal High Court to freeze the Osun State account.
“The law empowers EFCC under the law as in the below provisions Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 34 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004. Chairman Ola Olukoyede’s decision should therefore be read as an act of fiduciary responsibility — to the teachers in Ilesa waiting for salaries, to the pensioners in Osogbo, to the contractors building roads in Iwo, and to every Osun taxpayer. It was a statement that public office is public trust.
“We cannot demand that the Commission “fight corruption” and then tie its hands the moment it tries to. What Nigeria needs is not less EFCC action, but more transparent anti-graft action. Freezes should come with a clear 30–60-day window for the EFCC to conclude preliminary investigation and approach the court. Every freeze should be backed by an ex-parte court order within days, as was done in the Kogi case. The EFCC must explain, in measured terms, that a freeze is not guilt. It is due diligence. But none of that erases the core truth:
“Mr. Olukoyede and his team in our opinion acted to protect Osun’s treasury. For that, he deserves commendation, not public condemnation. History will not remember the press statements or the political tweets. History will remember whether the money meant for Osun people was protected or lost. To defend public funds is to defend democracy itself. To attack the EFCC for doing its job is to invite impunity into Government Houses.
“The EFCC made the right call in freezing Osun’s accounts, he reminded every public officer in Nigeria of one simple fact: the treasury does not belong to you, it belongs to the people,” Rafsanjani added.
He called on Nigerians to support the anti-corruption campaign in order to protect the nation’s resources and democracy.