A legal disagreement has come up again over the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s restriction of Osun State’s statutory allocation account, with lawyers presenting different perspectives on whether a court order was required before the restriction was placed.
On Friday, Prof. Mubarak Adekilekun, counsel to the Osun State Government, said that First Bank confirmed it received no court order alongside the EFCC letter restricting access to the account.
But human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, said the commission had legal authority to place a Post No Debit restriction for up to 72 hours before obtaining a court order.
READ RELATED NEWS
The opposing positions were aired on Channels Television amid the dispute over the account, coming shortly before the 15 August Osun governorship election.
The New Daily Prime on 5 August had reported that the EFCC placed a withdrawal restriction on the Osun State Government’s statutory allocation account, an action that immediately prompted concerns and arguments about the legal function of the institution. Reporting on the same case on 6 August, the New Daily Prime obtained responses from several lawyers, who offered varied views.
Following this development, disagreement has, again, intensified on the interpretation of Section 7 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act and a 2022 Court of Appeal judgment cited by Falana on Friday.
Two lawyers, two interpretations
Adekilekun said the EFCC could act on suspected financial offences, but its powers had to be used alongside the requirements of the Money Laundering Act.
He said a court order had to be issued and served, particularly on First Bank, before the restriction could be imposed.
The counsel said the EFCC first sent its letter to First Bank in Osun. The bank then transmitted the letter to the state government, where the absence of a court order was noticed.
“You will recall that after the letter was written to First Bank in Osun, which in turn transmitted the letter to the state government, the requirement of the law in this regard is that a court order must be issued and served on, especially, First Bank,” Adekilekun said.
“The letter was forwarded to Osun State Government, where First Bank confirmed that no court order was attached to it,” he said.
Falana presented a different legal position.
He said the EFCC could place a PND restriction on a state government account for not more than 72 hours before obtaining a court order.
He based his position on a 2022 Court of Appeal judgment involving the Benue State Government and the EFCC.
Falana also said the EFCC had gone to court in the Osun case and that the Federal High Court intervened based on information supplied by the commission.
“In this instance, the EFCC went to court, and the Federal High Court intervened based on information provided by the EFCC,” Falana said.
The two positions therefore differ on when the court order must be obtained and served in relation to the account restriction.
Account, election timing in dispute
The account at the centre of the dispute is Osun State’s statutory allocation account.
Adekilekun rejected allegations of money laundering involving the account, saying its only inflow was money received from the Federation Account.
“You can’t do an act of this magnitude and just say you are transmitting a letter to put a PND on a state government account. The only money that is being transferred to that account is from the Federation Account, pure federal domain. That’s one of the requirements,” he said.
President Bola Tinubu had directed the EFCC to approach the court to vacate the order and discontinue the action.
The President cited the timing of the restriction ahead of the election.
Adekilekun was asked whether the state government would continue with its legal action after the President’s directive.
He said that decision belonged to the Osun State Government.
“Well, it depends on what my client thinks, which is the Osun State Government. If they give us the go-ahead, but I think and I believe that it should be tried,” he said.
The dispute now leaves two legal positions on record: Adekilekun insists that a court order had to be served before the restriction, while Falana says the EFCC could impose the restriction for up to 72 hours before securing the order.
For More News Details, Visit New Daily Prime.
