0
…Opposition Says It Shows Anti-Graft Agency Not Independent
…Challenges Tinubu To Identify Court Order Freezing Account
…Tasks President On Same Directive To ICPC To Free El-Rufai
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has said President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s directive to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the freezing of the Osun State government’s account has shattered the long-standing claim that Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies operate independently of the presidency.
They also questioned the president’s claim that the EFCC acted pursuant to a court order, and challenged him to identify the court order he claimed authorised the freezing of Osun State’s account.
The ADC said that President Tinubu’s personal intervention in EFCC matter has exposed the presidency’s involvement in the issue.
Welcoming Tinubu’s directive ordering the EFCC to reverse the freezing of the Osun State government’s account, the party said the president’s explanation has created more questions than answers, particularly his claim that the EFCC acted pursuant to a court order.
ADC, in a statement on Thursday in Abuja by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, said that the president’s admission that he directed the EFCC to discontinue the action contradicts repeated claims that the anti-graft agency operates independently of the presidency.
ADC noted that the anti-graft agency had never made such a claim in any of its public statements. The party also argued that the reversal was prompted not by any sudden commitment to democratic principles but by widespread public outrage over what many Nigerians viewed as an abuse of state power capable of influencing the forthcoming Osun governorship election.
ADC said: “Most curious is the president’s repeated reference to an alleged court order authorising the freezing of the state’s accounts. This is an entirely new claim.
“Throughout this controversy, the EFCC consistently defended its action on the basis of its statutory powers and what it described as its ‘preventive mandate.’ At no point did the commission state that it had obtained a court order authorising the freezing of the accounts.
“This raises unavoidable questions. If such a court order exists, why was it never mentioned in any of the EFCC’s official statements? Why was it not cited by the commission’s spokesperson during his appearance on Arise Television while defending the action? If no such order exists, why has the president introduced it into the public narrative?
“The president was either misinformed or he deliberately misrepresented the facts. Either possibility is deeply troubling.
“Equally significant is the contradiction contained in the president’s statement. While insisting that he does not interfere in the operational affairs of anti-corruption agencies, he simultaneously disclosed that he directed the EFCC to approach the court, vacate the alleged order and discontinue the proceedings.”
The party stated that the president’s admission raises a fundamental question, adding, “If the president can direct the EFCC to withdraw legal proceedings because of their potential political consequences, then it follows that he can also direct the agency in other operational matters. The long-standing claim that the EFCC operates with complete institutional independence is therefore difficult to sustain in light of the president’s own statement.
“Indeed, the presidency’s attempt to distance itself from the controversy has produced the opposite effect. Rather than reinforcing the independence of anti-corruption agencies, it suggests that executive intervention remains available whenever political considerations demand it.”
ADC also frowned at the unusual manner of the president’s action, adding, “Equally unusual is the manner in which the statement was issued. Instead of communicating through the presidency or the Office of the President, it was personally signed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu himself.
“This departure from established practice naturally raises further questions. If the president merely intended to direct the EFCC to reverse its action, why issue a personally signed public statement instead of communicating directly with the agency? The unusual approach has exposed more than it appears to have intended to conceal.”
The ADC maintained that this reversal was not driven by a sudden commitment to democratic principles. It was compelled by overwhelming condemnation from Nigerians, civil society organisations, political parties and other stakeholders who viewed the freezing of Osun State’s account as an extraordinary abuse of state power capable of undermining the integrity of the forthcoming governorship election.
“Having now demonstrated that he can direct federal anti-corruption agencies to discontinue proceedings in the interest of democratic fairness, the president should also consider directing the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and its counsel to withdraw their opposition to the bail application of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai,” ADC said.
Atiku Abubakar also challenged President Tinubu to direct the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) to release former Kaduna State governor, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, if indeed the president possesses the authority to issue operational directives to anti-graft agencies.
Atiku, in a statement on Thursday in Abuja by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, said the president’s public declaration that he had directed the EFCC to vacate what he described as a court order freezing Osun State’s account had fundamentally altered the government’s own narrative about the operational independence of anti-corruption institutions.
“The president’s statement has exposed the illusion surrounding the so-called independence of the EFCC. If the commission is truly insulated from executive interference, on what legal or constitutional basis did the president publicly announce that he had directed it to reverse its action?
“More troubling is the contradiction between the president’s account and the EFCC’s official statement. The commission painstakingly explained why it froze the Osun State government’s account but made no reference whatsoever to obtaining a court order. Yet the president justified his intervention on the basis of directing the EFCC to vacate such an order. Nigerians deserve a coherent explanation instead of conflicting narratives from the same administration,” Atiku said.
Atiku said the president’s intervention had inadvertently confirmed what many Nigerians had long suspected.
He said: “President Tinubu cannot simultaneously claim that anti-corruption agencies operate independently and then publicly issue operational directives to one of those same agencies. Once the EFCC complies with such a directive, the claim of institutional independence becomes impossible to sustain.
“An anti-graft agency cannot be presented as independent only when it is politically convenient and become subject to presidential directives whenever controversy arises. That is not institutional autonomy; it is executive control clothed in the language of independence.”
Tinubu Directs EFCC To Unfreeze Osun State Account
Earlier, President Bola Tinubu directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to lift the freeze order it placed on a bank account of the Osun State government.
The president in a statement personally signed by him, on Thursday, said he is deeply embarrassed not by the mandate of the commission but by the timing of the anti-graft agency’s enforcement of the freeze order.
Recall that just as the gubernatorial elections for Osun is gathering momentum, the EFCC ordered the freezing of the state account, a development that has drawn criticism against the government at the centre.
Tinubu said, “It has come to my notice that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (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 the 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”.
