• Calls Adeleke, expresses deep embarrassment over timing of action
•Atiku, ADC fault claim of anti-graft agencies’ independence
•Urge president to order ICPC to free El-Rufai
• Accord Party alleges plot to influence Osun poll
• Adeleke slams N2bn suit against EFCC
Deji Elumoye, Chuks Okocha, Alex Enumah and Sunday Aborisade in Abuja
President Bola Tinubu yesterday took the rare step of directing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to immediately return to court to vacate the order freezing the Osun State Government’s bank account, describing the timing of the action as embarrassing.
The Nigerian leader argued that the move by the anti-corruption agency was capable of creating the impression that federal institutions were being deployed to influence the August 15 governorship election in the state.
The President also personally telephoned Osun State Governor, Senator Ademola Adeleke, to inform him of the directive, in what observers described as an unusual intervention in the operational activities of an anti-graft agency that the presidency has consistently maintained enjoys institutional independence.
Besides, Adeleke’s party, Accord, has alleged that the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts formed part of a broader plot to influence the outcome of the August 15 governorship election.
However, former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, said President Tinubu’s directive to the EFCC had irretrievably damaged the long-standing claim that the anti-graft agency operates independently of the Presidency.
In the same vein, Adeleke has dragged the EFCC before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking N2 billion in exemplary and aggravated damages over what he described as the unlawful freezing of the Osun State Government’s Federal Statutory Allocation Account.
But Tinubu, in a seven-paragraph statement, stressed that although he remained committed to allowing anti-corruption agencies discharge their statutory responsibilities without interference, he considered the timing of the EFCC’s action against an opposition-controlled state just days before a governorship election as inappropriate and capable of undermining public confidence in the electoral process.
“It has come to my notice that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) obtained a court order on August 5, 2026, freezing the accounts of the Osun State Government. I must state that I feel deeply embarrassed not by the EFCC’s exercise of its mandate backed by a court order, but by the timing of the agency’s action.
“This is so because every action taken by an institution of state, especially at the federal level, is always credited to me, as the President, even when I may not have had any prior knowledge of the action,” he said.
The President reiterated that since assuming office, he had deliberately refrained from interfering in the activities of anti-corruption agencies because of his belief that democratic institutions must function independently within the limits of the law.
“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.
“I have therefore deliberately refrained from directing or interfering in the operational activities of the EFCC or any other investigative or prosecutorial agency because I firmly believe that strong democratic institutions, operating within the confines of the law, are indispensable to democratic good governance and the rule of law,” Tinubu stated.
He added that although he was yet to be fully briefed on the circumstances that informed the commission’s decision to obtain the order freezing the state’s account, the political timing of the action compelled his intervention.
“As President, I am committed to allowing institutions of state to function and take any action they consider necessary in the interest of proper governance without the need for any prior approval.
“While I am yet to be fully apprised of the facts which informed the action of EFCC in approaching the court to obtain the said order freezing the Osun State Government account, I am not in the slightest doubt that the timing of the action of EFCC is inauspicious, and therefore I feel compelled to intervene,” he said.
The President emphasised that no action should create the impression that agencies of the Federal Government were being used to influence an election.
“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.
“Based on the foregoing premise, I am duty-bound to issue a directive on this issue in consonance with the overriding public interest in preserving public confidence and the integrity, credibility, and fairness of our democratic process.
“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,” Tinubu declared.
Tinubu Calls Adeleke
Shortly after issuing the directive, the President telephoned Governor Adeleke to personally inform him of the decision.
The development was disclosed by the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, in a post on his verified X handle.
According to Onanuga: “President Tinubu in a phone conversation with Governor Ademola Adeleke on Thursday informed him about his directive to the EFCC to lift the court order on the Osun State Government account.”
The telephone conversation came amid mounting criticism from opposition parties, civil society groups and legal practitioners who had questioned the propriety of freezing a state’s statutory allocation account barely days before a governorship election.
Accord Alleges Plot to Influence Poll
Also yesterday, the Accord Party alleged that the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts formed part of a broader plot to influence the outcome of the August 15 governorship election.
In a statement signed by its National Chairman, Chief Maxwell Mgbudem, the party described the action as unconstitutional, politically motivated and an abuse of state institutions.
According to the party, the move was designed to weaken the administration of Governor Adeleke and pave the way for the All Progressives Congress (APC) to reclaim the state.
“The arbitrary freezing of the Osun State Government accounts is unconstitutional and unacceptable. It is part of a wider plot to deploy federal institutions to capture Osun State for the APC,” the party stated.
Accord maintained that the action amounted to an assault on democracy and vowed to challenge the EFCC’s action in court, insisting that the commission acted without first obtaining a valid court order.
The party further alleged that security agencies had intensified the harassment, arrest and detention of its members and supporters in Osun State ahead of the election.
It therefore called on Tinubu to ensure that security agencies remained neutral before, during and after the governorship poll, while urging the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a transparent and credible election free from intimidation and political interference.
Atiku Questions EFCC’s Independence
However, former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku, said Tinubu’s directive to the EFCC had irretrievably damaged the long-standing claim that the anti-graft agency operates independently of the Presidency.
In a statement issued by his Special Assistant on Public Communication, Mr. Phrank Shaibu, Atiku challenged the President to direct the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to release former Kaduna State Governor, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, if indeed he possessed the authority to issue operational directives to anti-corruption agencies.
Atiku argued that Tinubu’s statement had raised more questions than answers, particularly because the President repeatedly referred to a court order which the EFCC itself had not mentioned in its public explanation for freezing the Osun State Government’s account.
“President Tinubu’s statement has raised more questions than it has answered. While the EFCC’s official statement painstakingly explained why it froze the Osun State Government’s account, it made no mention whatsoever of obtaining a court order.
“Yet the President’s intervention is predicated entirely on the existence of such a court order, which he claims to have directed the EFCC to vacate.
“If indeed there was a court order, why did the EFCC omit such a fundamental fact from its official account? If there was none, then the President has introduced into the public discourse a legal process that exists nowhere in the EFCC’s own narrative. Nigerians deserve a coherent explanation instead of conflicting versions from the same government,” Atiku said.
He maintained that the President could no longer insist that the EFCC was operationally independent while simultaneously directing it to withdraw an action already initiated.
“President Tinubu cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that he neither knows of nor interferes in the operations of the EFCC and, in the very next breath, announces that he has directed the Commission to discontinue its action and return to court.
“If the EFCC promptly complies with that directive, then Nigerians have before them undeniable proof that the Commission is not as operationally independent as the President wants the country to believe.
“One cannot preach institutional independence while exercising direct operational control over the same institution. Institutions cannot be independent only when it is politically convenient and subject to presidential directives whenever controversy arises. That is not institutional autonomy; it is executive control disguised as independence,” he stated.
Atiku further argued that the President had created a constitutional and moral obligation to exercise similar authority in the case involving El-Rufai.
“Having now demonstrated that he can issue direct operational directives to anti-corruption agencies whenever he considers it expedient, President Tinubu owes Nigerians an explanation as to why he cannot exercise the same authority in the case of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai.
“If he can direct the EFCC to discontinue its action today, then he cannot pretend to be powerless over the actions of the ICPC tomorrow. Executive power cannot be invoked selectively for political convenience while institutional independence is cited only when it suits the Presidency,” Atiku added.
He also questioned why the EFCC initiated such a far-reaching action against an opposition-controlled state on the eve of a governorship election.
“The unanswered questions remain: who authorised the freezing of the account of an opposition-controlled state just days before a governorship election, and why was such an extraordinary action taken at such a politically sensitive moment?
“Nigerians deserve answers. Democracy is not measured by the ability to reverse an injustice after public outrage; it is measured by the discipline to prevent such injustice from occurring in the first place,” he said.
ADC Queries Tinubu’s Court Order Claim
Also reacting, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) welcomed the President’s directive reversing the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts but questioned his repeated reference to an alleged court order authorising the action.
In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party said the President’s explanation had opened up fresh questions about the circumstances surrounding the EFCC’s action.
“What we find most curious about the statement is the President’s repeated reference to an alleged court order authorising the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts.
“This is a remarkable new twist. In all of its public statements on this matter, the EFCC never once claimed that it had obtained a court order. The Commission consistently defended its actions on the basis of its statutory powers and what it described as its preventive mandate.
“At no point did it inform Nigerians that a court had authorised its actions,” the ADC said.
The opposition party asked where the President obtained information about the alleged court order. “The obvious question, therefore, is: where did the President obtain the information that a court order existed?
“If such an order exists, why was it never mentioned by the EFCC in its statement while defending one of the most controversial actions it has taken in recent times?
“If no such order exists, why would the President introduce one into the public narrative? It is either the President was misinformed or he had chosen to misrepresent the facts. Either possibility is deeply disturbing,” the party stated.
The ADC further argued that Tinubu’s public admission that he had directed the EFCC to discontinue its action undermined repeated claims that anti-corruption agencies operated independently of the Presidency.
According to the party: “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.
“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.”
The party also described as unusual the President’s decision to personally sign the statement instead of issuing it through the Presidency or one of his official spokesmen.
It maintained that the reversal followed sustained public outrage and urged Tinubu to similarly direct the ICPC to stop opposing the bail application of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai if public interest was indeed the guiding principle.
Adeleke Sues EFCC, Demands N2bn Damages
Meanwhile, Adeleke has dragged the EFCC before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking N2 billion in exemplary and aggravated damages over what he described as the unlawful freezing of the Osun State Government’s Federal Statutory Allocation Account.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1763/2026, was instituted by the governor alongside the Attorney General and Accountant General of Osun State against the EFCC, its Chairman and First Bank of Nigeria Limited.
Through a legal team led by Prof. M. T. Adekilekun (SAN) the plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the anti-graft agency possesses the constitutional or statutory authority to freeze, block or place a post-no-debit restriction on a state’s statutory allocation account without first obtaining and serving a valid court order.
The plaintiffs are also seeking a declaration that the action of the EFCC was unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires and of no legal effect.
Among the reliefs sought are an order nullifying the freezing directive issued by the EFCC on August 5, compelling First Bank to immediately remove all restrictions placed on the account, and perpetual injunctions restraining both the commission and the bank from taking similar action in future except in accordance with due process.
The plaintiffs further prayed the court to award N2 billion as exemplary and aggravated damages for what they described as the unlawful interference with public funds meant for the administration of the state.
No hearing date has yet been fixed.
Background to Dispute
The controversy began after the EFCC directed First Bank to place a post-no-debit restriction on Osun State Government’s statutory allocation account as part of an ongoing investigation into the alleged diversion of about N11 billion in Ecology Funds, Intervention Funds and Federal Allocation Account Committee (FAAC) receipts.
Explaining its action, the anti-graft agency said investigations, which commenced in March 2026, initially did not warrant freezing the account until investigators observed what it described as suspicious movements of large sums of money from the state’s account into several corporate entities beginning August 2.
According to the commission, the restriction became necessary to prevent further depletion of public funds while investigations continued.
Adeleke, however, rejected the explanation, describing the action as an abuse of the rule of law and insisting that the EFCC lacked the constitutional powers to freeze a state’s statutory allocation account.
He challenged the Chairman of the commission, Mr. Ola Olukoyede, to publicly justify the action, while directing the state’s Attorney General to immediately institute legal proceedings.
The Osun State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Oluwole Jimi-Bada (SAN) similarly argued that neither the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act nor the EFCC Act empowers the commission to interfere with a state’s statutory allocation account.
He stressed that the funds are meant for salaries, pensions, healthcare, education, security and other essential public services.
Jimi-Bada maintained that while the state remained committed to transparency and lawful investigations, any restriction on constitutionally protected public funds must comply strictly with due process and be sanctioned by a competent court.