The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and Transparency International Nigeria have defended the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over its decision to restrict accounts linked to the Osun State Government.
The organisations argued that protecting public funds should take priority where credible concerns exist that money may be diverted, dissipated or moved beyond the reach of investigators.
Speaking through CISLAC Executive Director and Head of Transparency International Nigeria, Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, the group said the controversy had failed to address a fundamental question.
“Who protects the money of the people of Osun when alarm bells ring?” it asked.
CISLAC maintained that government funds belonged to citizens rather than governors, political parties or individual administrations.
It said salaries, pensions, healthcare, infrastructure and social programmes depended on the proper management of public resources.
According to the organisation, allowing suspicious funds to be moved while an investigation is ongoing could make recovery more difficult.
“The intent is simple: pause first, audit second, prosecute third if necessary,” CISLAC said.
The group stressed that temporarily restricting an account should not automatically be interpreted as a declaration that government officials were guilty of wrongdoing.
CISLAC also disagreed with claims that restrictions on state accounts necessarily paralysed government activities.
It argued that the potential loss of billions of naira could have more damaging consequences for citizens than a temporary restriction intended to allow investigators to examine suspicious transactions.
“What paralyses governance more — a temporary audit, or the disappearance of billions meant for public good?” it asked.
The organisation said federal, state and local government allocations were meant to fund education, healthcare, security, infrastructure and other public services and should therefore be protected when there was a credible risk of misuse.
The organisation referred to previous EFCC interventions involving state government funds.
It cited the commission’s 2021 action involving a Kogi State salary bailout account containing more than ₦20bn.
According to CISLAC, the EFCC obtained a Federal High Court order restricting the account while investigating the use of funds provided to support salary payments and government operations.
It said the commission relied on constitutional and statutory provisions allowing steps to preserve assets suspected to be connected with financial wrongdoing.
The organisation also cited previous interventions involving Benue and Edo states as examples of preventive measures aimed at preserving public funds while investigations were conducted.
“You cannot investigate a moving target,” CISLAC said.
CISLAC argued that anti-graft agencies must be capable of acting quickly when petitions, intelligence reports or audit findings indicate that substantial public funds may be moved.
“A state account can be emptied in 24 hours. A court case can take five years,” it said.
The group maintained that waiting until the conclusion of a criminal trial before preserving assets could leave investigators with little or nothing to recover.
Despite supporting the EFCC’s action, CISLAC called for clear safeguards governing account restrictions.
It proposed that preventive freezes should ordinarily operate within a 30-to-60-day period, during which the commission should complete preliminary investigations and seek further judicial authorisation where necessary.
The organisation also urged the EFCC to communicate clearly that restricting an account was an investigative measure rather than proof of criminal liability.
It said such transparency would help prevent the process from being interpreted as political punishment.
CISLAC commended EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede and the commission for what it described as an effort to protect Osun’s public resources.
It maintained that the debate should focus on whether taxpayers’ money was being safeguarded rather than on the political party controlling the affected government.
“The treasury does not belong to you; it belongs to the people,” the organisation said.
