A major constitutional and legal row has erupted following the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) decision to freeze a primary bank account belonging to the Osun State Government.
The move, coming just days ahead of the state’s August 15 governorship election, has drawn sharp criticism from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), senior legal practitioners, civil society organisations, and opposition parties.
The EFCC’s position
The controversy stems from an August 5, 2026, letter issued by the EFCC directing First Bank to enforce a Post No Debit (PND) order on the Osun State Government Statutory Allocation account.
Clarifying its stance in a statement by its spokesperson, Dele Oyewale, the anti-graft agency explained that the restriction was a preventive intervention following suspicious, high-volume transactions detected starting August 2, 2026.
The commission stated it has been investigating state officials since March 2026 over the alleged mismanagement of roughly ₦11 billion spanning Federal Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) funds, Ecology Funds, and other intervention allocations.
The commission rejected allegations of political bias, emphasising that its statutory mandate to protect public resources supersedes electoral timelines and that several other state governments remain under similar scrutiny.
Legal community reacts: NBA faults commission
The action has drawn heavy pushback from top legal authorities who question the constitutional validity of a blanket financial restriction on a sovereign state.
NBA President Afam Osigwe (SAN) warned that freezing state allocation accounts sets a dangerous precedent capable of shutting down government operations.
While acknowledging the EFCC’s right to target specific accounts tied to fraud, he insisted that sweeping account freezes require clear judicial backing and advised financial institutions against obeying blanket restriction orders lacking court warrants.
Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN) and Isiaka Olagunju (SAN) echoed these concerns, stressing that Nigerian jurisprudence consistently mandates prior judicial authorisation before executing such restrictions, adding that arbitrary freezes violate federalist principles.
Conversely, Prof. Damilola Olawuyi (SAN) noted that temporary account restrictions are globally recognised mechanisms for halting financial infractions, provided they remain grounded in law rather than politics.
Wolemi Esan (SAN) further clarified that while Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering Act permits a temporary 72-hour stop-order without court intervention, any freeze exceeding that timeframe strictly requires an interim court order under Section 34 of the EFCC Act.
Civil society and political fallout
The timing of the EFCC’s directive has further polarised the political landscape ahead of the upcoming Osun poll.
Auwal Musa Rafsanjani of CISLAC urged the Osun State Government to challenge the restriction in court if found unconstitutional. Debo Adeniran (CACOL) and Ezenwa Nwagwu (PAACA) noted that while anti-graft bodies must remain free to investigate financial crimes without political interference, the agency bears the burden of proving its actions are evidence-based rather than politically motivated.
Opposition parties—including the ADC, Labour Party, SDP, YPP, and NDC—strongly condemned the restriction. The ADC characterised the freeze as an act of “political terrorism” designed to financially cripple the incumbent state administration right before voters go to the polls.
The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), however, dismissed the opposition’s claims, maintaining that anti-corruption agencies must be allowed to perform their statutory duties regardless of electoral schedules.
Read Also: Osun State Governor Adeleke suspends aide over alleged diversion of 70 bags of rice
