President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to vacate the court order freezing the Osun State government’s bank account has raised fresh questions about the anti-graft agency’s independence.

Many Nigerians had taken to the social media to ask whether by fiat, the president can order the EFCC around, wondering whether the anti-graft’s agency inertia in the probes of former Humanitarian affairs Minister, Beta Edu and former Kogi state Governor, Yahaya Bello were due to presidential interference.

Some of those who questioned the president’s action were the African Democratic Congress ADC, its presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN all weighing in on the implications for the rule of law.

The development followed Tinubu’s directive on Thursday ordering the EFCC to immediately return to court and vacate the order freezing the Osun government’s accounts.

The president said although the commission acted within its statutory powers, the timing of the action — days before the August 15 governorship election — was inappropriate, adding that he felt “deeply embarrassed” by the development because actions of federal agencies are often attributed to the presidency.

Before the president’s intervention, the EFCC had defended the freeze, with Wilson Uwujaren, the commission’s Director of Public Affairs, insisting the action was routine and not politically motivated. He cited a similar restriction placed on Edo State’s accounts before the 2024 governorship election, and said the commission could freeze an account for 72 hours without a court order, arguing it was still within the legal window.

On the constitutional questions raised by the episode, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, said the president does not have the power under any law to control the EFCC or the ICPC, but argued that public officers retain discretionary powers to act as they consider necessary in peculiar circumstances.

“It would be wrong for us to hear that the person you are supposed to chase has powers to direct you how to chase him. And to do it publicly,” he said.

He added that the president’s intervention, in his view, was “pardonable” given the risk that the freeze could be perceived as an attempt to influence the Osun election.

Maduabuchi, however, faulted the manner of the president’s intervention, saying it ought to have been handled through the Attorney General rather than a public directive bearing the president’s personal signature.

He also suggested that rather than freezing the entire Osun government account, the EFCC should have pursued the specific funds allegedly diverted to private companies. “Go after the money. Leave Oshun State. The one that is in the account is not missing. Go after the one that has left the account,” he said.

The senior advocate that the episode reflected a broader problem of public trust, noting that unlike in other democracies, statements from Nigerian leaders on political and electoral matters are often met with public disbelief. “Nigerians do not trust their rulers,” he said.

ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, had welcomed Tinubu’s directive but said the president’s explanation had raised more questions than answers, particularly around his reference to a court order authorising the account freeze.

“What we find most curious about the statement is the President’s repeated reference to an alleged court order authorising the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts,” he said.

Abdullahi noted that the EFCC had never publicly claimed to have obtained judicial approval before Tinubu’s intervention, defending its action instead on the basis of its statutory powers and what it described as its “preventive mandate.”

He queried: “The obvious question, therefore, is: where did the President obtain the information that a court order existed? If such an order exists, why was it never mentioned by the EFCC in its statement while defending one of the most controversial actions it has taken in recent times?” He added that either the president was misinformed or had chosen to misrepresent the facts, describing both possibilities as “deeply disturbing.”

In a separate statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku Abubakar described the freezing of the account as a dangerous assault on democracy, insisting there could be no justification for it on the eve of a critical election. “It is impossible to ignore the implications of freezing a state’s principal operational account on the eve of a governorship election. Such an action could disrupt governance, delay salary payments, impede essential public services and create an atmosphere of intimidation that has no place in a democratic society,” he said.

Atiku cautioned anti-corruption agencies against conduct that creates the perception they are being deployed to influence political outcomes, warning that “the selective and politically convenient deployment of state institutions diminishes public trust and weakens the democratic order.”

He linked the development to what he called a pattern of coercive federal actions against opposition-controlled states, citing the earlier withholding of Osun State’s statutory local government allocations, and called on opposition parties and Nigerians committed to constitutional democracy to “close ranks and resist this dangerous drift before it is too late.” In a follow-up statement, Atiku challenged Tinubu to direct the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to release former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai, arguing that the president’s intervention in the Osun matter had demolished the long-held claim that anti-corruption agencies act independently of the presidency.

“Having now demonstrated that he can issue direct operational directives to anti-corruption agencies whenever he considers it expedient, President Tinubu owes Nigerians an explanation as to why he cannot exercise the same authority in the case of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai,” he said.

Atiku argued that the president could not simultaneously deny interference in EFCC operations while directing the commission’s next move, describing the arrangement as “executive control disguised as independence” rather than institutional autonomy. (Saturday Vanguard)

Update news