PRESS STATEMENT BY CISLAC ON EFCC INTERVENTION IN OSUN STATE

PRESS STATEMENT BY CISLAC ON EFCC INTERVENTION IN OSUN STATE

The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Transparency International Nigeria, is deeply concerned about the implications of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s direct intervention in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s action concerning the accounts of the Osun State Government.

While we acknowledge the need to ensure that anti-corruption institutions do not take actions capable of disrupting legitimate government functions or being perceived as politically motivated, 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 EFCC was established by law to investigate, prevent and prosecute economic and financial crimes. Its effectiveness depends considerably on its ability to discharge these responsibilities professionally, impartially and without political interference. The EFCC Act specifically establishes the Commission and assigns it responsibility for combating economic and financial crimes.

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.

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.

THAT PERCEPTION IS EXTREMELY DAMAGING.

Nigeria cannot build strong institutions if enforcement agencies are perceived as powerful when investigating some individuals or governments but vulnerable to political intervention when their actions become inconvenient to those in authority.

Presidential intervention weakens institutional independence

Perhaps the most important lesson from this controversy is the urgent need to strengthen the institutional independence of Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies.

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.

Secondly, 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.

Thirdly, the Federal Government must guarantee the operational independence of the EFCC, ICPC and other anti-corruption institutions. Their investigative decisions should not depend upon presidential intervention.

Fourthly 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 larger concern therefore goes beyond Osun State. It is about whether Nigeria genuinely wants independent institutions capable of protecting public resources without fear, favour or political interference.

We noticed that one fundamental question was ignored in the whole situation and that  who protects the money of the people of Osun when alarm bells ring?

Salaries, pensions, healthcare, road contracts, and school feeding programmes all depend on one thing: that public funds remain public. Once money leaves the state coffers into questionable channels, it rarely comes back. This is why the law gives the EFCC the power to place a hold on suspicious transactions, the intent is simple Pause first, audit second, prosecute third if necessary.

Freezing an account protects evidence, it workers who are waiting for wages, protects pensioners who have served the state for 35 years as well as the next generation that will inherit state’s debt or development. Those who argue that freezing state accounts “paralyses governance” must also answer this: what paralyses governance more — a temporary audit, or the disappearance of billions meant for public good? We need to remember that state, local and Federal monies or allocations are not meant for political activities, they are meant for running state affairs such as salaries, development projects including education, health, security and general wellbeing of the people etc.

PRESIDENT AND CURRENT SITUTION

Precedent matters because the Osun case is not an isolated incident. The EFCC has used this tool before, and the courts have affirmed it. The goal has always been the same: safeguarding public resources while investigations proceed. During the last governorship election in Edo State, the Commission placed restrictions on the state government accounts following petitions and intelligence reports bordering on contract inflation and diversion of federal allocations. About N12bn was preserved by that strategic and timely intervention. The purpose was not to shut down Edo, but to ensure that funds meant for the people of the state were not moved out of reach before a proper forensic audit could be done. The same intervention was carried out in Benue State.

Similarly in August 2021, the EFCC obtained a court order to restrict a Kogi State salary bailout account domiciled in Sterling Bank Plc which had over ₦20 billion. The ₦20 billion loan meant to augment the salary payment and running cost of the State Government was kept in an interest-yielding account with Sterling Bank Plc. The EFCC approached a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos with an ex-parte application brought pursuant to section 44 (2) of the Constitution and section 34(1) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act.

The Commission told the court it was acting to preserve the loan. The argument was not about politics, but about preservation. The courts agreed that the EFCC, as Nigeria’s anti-graft agency, has the power to take such steps in the interest of the public. In both Edo, Benue and Kogi, the principle was upheld investigation must not be defeated by dissipation. You cannot investigate a moving target. Why the freeze was necessary without prejudging any investigation, the logic behind the Osun freeze follows the same pattern.

When credible petitions, intelligence, or audit queries suggest the risk of large-scale movement of funds, the EFCC must act within hours, not weeks. A state account can be emptied in 24 hours. A court case can take 5 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.

Finally call on Nigerians to support anti corruption effort in order to protect the nation’s resources and our democracy

Thanks.

Auwal Musa Rafsanjani

Executive Director

Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) And Head of Transparency International Nigeria