*** Warns against political interference in EFCC operations

The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), the Nigerian chapter of Transparency International, on Friday, expressed concern over President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s reported intervention in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) handling of the Osun State government’s bank accounts freezing.

It also recalled that the EFCC was established by law to investigate, prevent and prosecute economic and financial crimes without political interference, adding that its credibility depends on its ability to carry out those responsibilities professionally and impartially.

The Executive Director of CISLAC and Head of Transparency International Nigeria, Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, disclosed this in Abuja, during a press briefing, he warned that presidential intervention in a specific enforcement action creates a dangerous precedent by suggesting that anti-corruption investigations are subject to political control.

He said that the government must ensure anti-corruption agencies do not disrupt legitimate governance or become instruments of political persecution, the President’s directive to the EFCC to seek the lifting of a court order freezing the accounts raises serious concerns about the independence of both the anti-graft agency and the judiciary.

According to him, if the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts was based on credible intelligence indicating that public funds were at risk of diversion or misuse, the appropriate course of action was to allow the investigative process and the courts to determine the matter.

He maintained that public funds belong to citizens and not elected officials or political parties, arguing that where an anti-corruption agency has reasonable grounds to suspect threats to public resources, it has a statutory duty to protect them.

Rafsanjani said: “Nigeria cannot build strong institutions if enforcement agencies are perceived as powerful when investigating some individuals or governments but vulnerable to political intervention when their actions become inconvenient to those in authority.

“Presidential intervention weakens institutional independence. Perhaps the most important lesson from this controversy is the urgent need to strengthen the institutional independence of Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies.

“An EFCC Chairman should be capable of making lawful operational decisions and defending those decisions before the courts and the Nigerian public without waiting for political instructions from the Presidency. Likewise, where the EFCC makes a wrong or disproportionate decision, the proper institution to correct that decision should ordinarily be the judiciary through established legal procedures.

“The President should provide moral and policy support for the fight against corruption, ensure adequate funding and protect anti-corruption institutions from political interference. The President should not be seen to be directing individual investigations or enforcement decisions.

“Secondly, lifting restrictions on the account must not terminate any legitimate investigation. If there is evidence of diversion or attempted diversion of public resources, those responsible must be investigated and prosecuted irrespective of political affiliation.”

The CISLAC boss said the controversy underscores the urgent need to strengthen the institutional independence of the EFCC, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and other anti-corruption agencies.

He argued that the EFCC Chairman should be able to make lawful operational decisions and defend them before the courts and the public without waiting for political directives from the Presidency, while any wrongful or excessive actions by the Commission should be corrected through judicial processes rather than executive intervention.

Rafsanjani further urged the Federal Government to limit its role to providing policy direction, adequate funding and protection for anti-corruption institutions, rather than influencing ongoing investigations.

He also called on the National Assembly to strengthen legal safeguards protecting the leadership and operations of anti-corruption agencies from political interference while enhancing judicial oversight and accountability.

He noted that the larger issue extends beyond Osun State to the future of independent institutions capable of protecting public resources without fear or favour.

Rafsanjani questioned who protects public funds when warning signs emerge, noting that salaries, pensions, healthcare, education and infrastructure projects depend on safeguarding government finances from diversion.

According to him, freezing suspicious accounts is a preventive legal measure designed to preserve evidence and protect public resources pending investigation, not a declaration of guilt.

He argued that while temporary restrictions may inconvenience government operations, the consequences of allowing billions of naira to disappear through questionable transactions would be far more damaging to governance.

CISLAC recalled previous instances where the EFCC obtained court orders to freeze government accounts, including actions involving Edo, Benue and Kogi states, saying the courts had upheld the Commission’s powers to preserve funds during investigations.

The organisation cited the 2021 freezing of a Kogi State salary bailout account containing over ₦20 billion, where the EFCC secured a Federal High Court order under relevant provisions of the Constitution and the EFCC Act to preserve the funds pending investigation.

Rafsanjani added, “You cannot investigate a moving target. Why the freeze was necessary without prejudging any investigation, the logic behind the Osun freeze follows the same pattern. When credible petitions, intelligence, or audit queries suggest the risk of large-scale movement of funds, the EFCC must act within hours, not weeks.

“A state account can be emptied in 24 hours. A court case can take 5 years. If the EFCC waits for a final conviction before acting, there will be nothing left to recover. That is why the law anticipates this and empowers preventive action. We have it on good authority that the EFCC obtained an order of the Federal High Court to freeze the Osun state account.

“The law empowers EFCC under the law as in the below provisions Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 34 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004. Chairman Ola Olukoyede’s decision should therefore be read as an act of fiduciary responsibility, to the teachers in Ilesa waiting for salaries, to the pensioners in Osogbo, to the contractors building roads in Iwo, and to every Osun taxpayer. It was a statement that public office is public trust.

“We cannot demand that the Commission “fight corruption” and then tie its hands the moment it tries to. What Nigeria needs is not less EFCC action, but more transparent anti-graft action. Freezes should come with a clear 30–60-day window for the EFCC to conclude preliminary investigation and approach the court. Every freeze should be backed by an ex-parte court order within days, as was done in the Kogi case.”