Divergent views over the EFCC’s decision to freeze the bank accounts of the state government have been expressed by two senior Nigerian lawyers, with one describing the action as unlawful and politically motivated, while the other argued that the timing of the move had raised legitimate public concerns despite possible legal justification.

Francis Amobi Nzelu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), lashed out at the anti-graft agency’s action, insisting that the freezing of a state’s accounts while a court order was still in force was improper.

In the words of the SAN, reports that President Bola Tinubu had directed the immediate unfreezing of the accounts indicate that the Presidency was not involved in the EFCC’s action.

Nzelu said: “The President has reportedly directed that the accounts be reopened. If that is true, then the matter is settled,” he said.

He queried the rationale behind freezing the accounts of a state government responsible for paying workers’ salaries and other statutory obligations, adding that, “What are they investigating? Why should they freeze the account of a state where salaries and allowances are paid? It appears to be politically motivated, particularly at a time that could affect an incoming administration.”

The SAN warned security agencies against actions capable of undermining democratic institutions, stressing that public officials should always remember they would one day be held accountable for their decisions.

On his part, a human rights crusader, Dr Yemi Omodele, acknowledged public concerns over the development but maintained that the EFCC would likely have presented sufficient evidence before obtaining the court order authorising the account freeze.

Dr Omodele maintained that judges do not grant such orders without reviewing facts and supporting documents submitted before the court.

The senior lawyer said, “Certain circumstances must have warranted the EFCC’s application, and the court would have considered those facts before granting the order.”

But he maintained that the timing of the action, coming during a politically sensitive period, was the real source of controversy.

In his words: “The major issue is not whether the order was rightly or wrongly granted, but the period in which it was obtained and executed. Because it happened during an election period, many Nigerians naturally perceive it through a political lens.”

Dr Omodele stressed the need for sustained efforts to combat corruption and ensure accountability in the management of public funds, while urging authorities to avoid actions capable of creating the impression of political bias.

Meanwhile, Governor Ademola Adeleke, on Thursday, slammed a N2 billion suit on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over what he termed the unlawful freezing of the state’s Federal Statutory Allocation Account.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1762/2026, also has the Attorney General of Osun State, as well as the Accountant General of the state, listed as 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, respectively.

Cited as 1st to 3rd defendants in the Originating Summons entered before the Federal High Court in Abuja by a team of lawyers led by Prof. M. T. Adekilekun, SAN, are the EFCC, its Chairman, and First Bank Nigeria Limited.

The plaintiffs specifically posed several legal questions for the court to determine, among which are, “Whether, having regard to the express provisions of Sections 1, 6, 36, 44 and 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants possess the lawful authority to freeze, restrict, block, place a ‘post no debit’ order on, or otherwise interfere with the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the 3rd Defendant, without regard to due process of law?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants possess the lawful authority to freeze, restrict, block, place a ‘post no debit’ order on, or otherwise interfere with the Osun State Government Federal Statutory Allocation Account, Number 2017170947, maintained with the 3rd Defendant, without first obtaining and serving a valid, subsisting, and specific order of a court of competent jurisdiction?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the directive of the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant ordering the freezing or restriction of the Osun State Statutory Account No. 2017170947, maintained with the 3rd Defendant, vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and authored by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), without any prior or concurrent court order sought, obtained and served on the 3rd Defendant, does not constitute an egregious act of executive lawlessness, an unlawful resort to self-help, a flagrant abuse of statutory powers, an unlawful suppression of the constitutional powers and functions of the Plaintiffs, a threat to the constitutional and corporate existence of Osun State, a brazen and unlawful denial of the democratic rights and dividends of the people of Osun State, and a direct violation of the fundamental constitutional principles of due process, the rule of law, and the financial autonomy of a federating unit?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 3rd Defendant, being the banker to the Government of Osun State in respect of the said statutory account, can lawfully freeze or continue to freeze, restrict, block, or deny the Government of Osun State unrestricted access to the said account merely upon an administrative directive, letter, request, instruction, or communication from the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants in the manner done herein, in the absence of a valid, subsisting, and specific order of a court of competent jurisdiction?

“Whether, having regard to the effect of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, and in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, this Honourable Court ought not to forthwith set aside the directive given by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant in a letter dated 5th August 2026 ordering the freezing, restriction, blocking, or placing of a post-no-debit instruction on the Osun State Statutory Account with the 3rd Defendant, given that such action was allegedly taken in violation of due process, and in a manner demonstrably capable of crippling the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Government to the people of Osun State?”

As well as: “Whether, having regard to the effect of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, and in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, the 3rd Defendant did not breach the duty of care owed to the Osun State Government when, on the purported directive of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, it placed a restriction on the Osun State Statutory Account with the 3rd Defendant, given that such action was allegedly taken without a court order, in violation of due process, and in a manner demonstrably capable of crippling the constitutional and statutory obligations and rights of the Government and people of Osun State.”

Upon determination of the questions, the plaintiffs, among other things, urged the court to declare the actions the defendants took with respect to the Osun State account as “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires their powers, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever”.

They further sought:

“An order setting aside, vacating, and nullifying the freezing, restriction, blocking, post-no-debit instruction, or any other restraint placed on the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the 3rd Defendant vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and authored by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), for being unlawful, unconstitutional, and without legal basis.

“An order mandating the 3rd Defendant to forthwith unfreeze, unblock, and remove all restrictions, and to allow the Government of Osun State immediate and unrestricted access to and operation of the said Osun State Statutory Account.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants, whether by themselves, their officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on their behalf, from freezing, restricting, blocking, placing a post-no-debit instruction on, or otherwise interfering with the Osun State Statutory Account or any other account of the Government of Osun State without following due process of the law.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant, whether by itself, its officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on its behalf, from acting on any directive, letter, instruction, or request from the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants to freeze, restrict, block, or deny access to the Osun State Statutory Account, except in the manner stipulated by law.”

They also prayed the court to award N2 billion against the defendants to serve as “exemplary and aggravated damages for the unlawful interference with public funds,” as well as an order directing the defendants to pay the costs of the litigation.

Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for the suit, which was filed shortly after President Bola Tinubu directed the EFCC to immediately approach the court to unfreeze the Osun State Federal Statutory Allocation Account. (Tribune)

Update news