President Bola Ahmed Tinubu yesterday intervened in the face-off between the Osun State Government and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the freezing of the state’s bank accounts.
He directed the anti-graft agency to immediately take steps to vacate a court order freezing the accounts.
According to him, the timing could create an impression of federal interference in the electoral process, thereby undermining public confidence.
The President said although he respects the independence of the anti-graft agency and had no prior knowledge of its action, he was compelled to intervene in the overriding public interest to preserve public confidence in the credibility and fairness of the democratic process.
The EFCC, which froze the First Bank account of the Osun State Government on Wednesday by placing a Post No Debit (PND) on it, alleged fraudulent handling of N11 billion ecology funds, intervention funds and Federal Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) releases.
It claimed that there were huge transfers of funds into different corporate entities and it had to swiftly halt the trend.
It said the Osun State government account was frozen to save public funds from being looted.
It added that its action has nothing to do with the Osun governorship election.
The action by the EFCC generated widespread reaction, coming barely nine days to the governorship poll scheduled for August 15.
The statement personally signed by the President reads: ‘It has come to my notice that the 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.
‘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.
‘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. Indeed, that is why institutions are set up by law with clearly defined powers.
‘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.
‘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.’
Apart from the statement, the President made a phone call to Governor Ademola Adeleke on the matter.
Special Adviser to the President on Media and Information, Bayo Onanuga, confirmed the phone call.
I didn’t loot N11b, says Adeleke
Adeleke denied looting N11 billion, saying that the allegation is false.
The Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment, Kolapo Alimi, who spoke on his behalf, insisted that no public funds were looted, alleging instead that the account was frozen to frustrate the payment of palliatives approved for civil servants.
He said the account was frozen to prevent the disbursement of cost-of-living support to workers.
Alimi said the state government had successfully paid the palliatives to workers, following negotiations with organised labour.
Alimi accused the anti-graft agency of acting out a political script, saying: ‘We don’t loot public funds in Osun State; we deliver public goods and services.
‘There is no fund to loot as the available resources are being utilised for infrastructure development, workers’ welfare and other sectoral programmes for the benefit of the people.’
The commissioner alleged that the EFCC had subjected officials of the state government to harassment since March without establishing any evidence of wrongdoing, adding that the investigations were aimed at distracting government officials from governance.
He said if the EFCC genuinely possessed evidence of financial misconduct, it should have followed established legal procedures instead of freezing government accounts.
SANs divided over Tinubu’s directive
Two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) expressed divergent views over President Tinubu’s directive to the EFCC.
While human rights lawyer Femi Falana argued that the President ought to have acted through the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) in line with constitutional provisions and due process, Chief Louis Alozie maintained that the President acted within his constitutional powers to uphold the rule of law.
Falana said the President’s intervention should have taken cognisance of the EFCC’s statutory independence and the fact that the commission had obtained a court order before freezing the accounts.
He said: ‘In intervening in the Osun State crisis, President Tinubu ought to have respected the independent status of the EFCC and the due process of law. As far as the law is concerned, the EFCC chairman is not at the beck and call of the President.
‘From the information at our disposal, the EFCC obtained a court order and the Osun State Government had approached the court to vacate or set aside the ex parte order freezing the account.
‘The President should have directed the AGF to take over the case under Section 174 of the Constitution with a view to withdrawing the case or discharging the ex parte.
‘Once the AGF takes over the case, he will apply to vacate the order or withdraw the entire case.
‘In the alternative, the AGF may decide not to oppose the motion filed by the Osun State Government to vacate the ex parte order.
‘But as William Shakespeare said in the title of one of his plays, ‘All is well that ends well.”
Alozie, however, defended the President’s action, insisting that the directive did not amount to interference with the statutory powers of the anti-graft agency.
He argued that the President’s oath of office obliges him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, adding that the EFCC, as a federal agency, lacks the power to interfere in the constitutional functions of state governments.
He said: ‘I do not see the President’s directive to EFCC to unfreeze the account of Osun State Government as an interference in the powers of the EFCC.
‘That directive is in line with the President’s powers and oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
‘The EFCC has no powers to interfere in the affairs of the State Governments, being a Federal agency.
‘Nigeria is a federal republic, with clear separation of powers not only among the three arms of government – Executive, Legislative and Judiciary – but also between the Federal, State and Local Governments.
ADC questions
Tinubu’s intervention
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) said the President’s decision raised fresh questions about the independence of anti-corruption agencies.
Its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the President’s reference to a court order authorising the freezing contradicted the EFCC’s previous public position.
He said the anti-graft agency had consistently defended its actions by citing its statutory powers and ‘preventive mandate’ without indicating that it had obtained a court order.
The party questioned where the President obtained information about the alleged court order, querying why the EFCC had not disclosed its existence in earlier public statements.
Osun sues EFCC, bank for N2b
Also yesterday, the Osun State Government filed a N2 billion suit against the EFCC before the Federal High Court in Abuja over the freezing of the state’s bank accounts.
Also listed as defendants are the EFCC Chairman, Olanipekun Olukoyede, and First Bank.
Named as plaintiffs are the Attorney-General of Osun State and the Accountant-General of the state.
The suit, which raised a series of issues for the court’s determination, wants a declaration that the defendants’ alleged action in relation to the Osun State account is ‘unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires their powers, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.’
The plaintiffs are also seeking the following reliefs:
An order setting aside, vacating, and nullifying the freezing, restriction, blocking, post-no-debit instruction, or any other restraint placed on the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the third defendant vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and authored by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), for being unlawful, unconstitutional, and without legal basis.
An order mandating the third defendant to forthwith unfreeze, unblock, and remove all restrictions, and to allow the Government of Osun State immediate and unrestricted access to and operation of the said Osun State Statutory Account.
An order of perpetual injunction restraining the first and second defendants, whether by themselves, their officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on their behalf, from freezing, restricting, blocking, placing a post-no-debit instruction on, or otherwise interfering with the Osun State Statutory Account or any other account of the Government of Osun State without following due process of the law.
An order of perpetual injunction restraining the third defendant, whether by itself, its officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on its behalf, from acting on any directive, letter, instruction, or request from the first and/or second defendants to freeze, restrict, block, or deny access to the Osun State Statutory Account, except in the manner stipulated by law.
The plaintiffs are seeking N2 billion as ‘exemplary and aggravated damages for the unlawful interference with public funds,’ as well as an order directing the defendants to pay the costs of the litigation.