IN DEFENCE OF THE PUBLIC PURSE

GREG JACOB argues that the EFCC acted to protect Osun’s treasury

When the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) moved to freeze the bank accounts of the Osun State Government, the reaction was swift, loud, and predictable. Political actors called it “an attack on federalism.” Commentators also took up arms against the commission. Within 24 hours, President Bola Tinubu reversed the order.

But in the noise, one fundamental question was ignored: who protects the money of the people of Osun when alarm bells ring? The EFCC Chairman did not act on a whim. He acted on duty. His mandate under Section 6 of the EFCC Act 2004 is clear: to prevent, investigate, and prosecute economic and financial crimes.

 Freezing accounts is not a conviction. It is not a punishment but a preventive, temporary measure — the financial equivalent of securing a crime scene until investigators finish their work. To condemn that action is to condemn the very idea of accountability.

Democracy is expensive. Salaries, pensions, healthcare, road contracts, and school feeding programmes all depend on one thing: that public funds remain public. Once money leaves the state coffers into questionable channels, it rarely comes back. This is why the law gives the EFCC the power to place a hold on suspicious transactions. The intent is simple: Pause first, audit second, prosecute third if necessary. A freeze protects evidence, it protects workers who are waiting for wages. It protects pensioners who have served the state for 35 years as well as the next generation that will inherit Osun’s debt or development.

Those who argue that freezing state accounts “paralyzes governance” must also answer this: what paralyzes governance more — a temporary audit, or the disappearance of billions meant for public good?

 The Osun case is not an isolated incident. The EFCC has used this tool before, and the courts have affirmed it. The goal has always been the same: safeguarding public resources while investigations proceed. During the last governorship election in Edo State, the Commission placed restrictions on the state government accounts following petitions and intelligence reports bordering on contract inflation and diversion of federal allocations. About N12bn was preserved by that strategic and timely intervention. The purpose was not to shut down Edo, but to ensure that funds meant for the people of the state were not moved out of reach before a proper forensic audit could be done. The same intervention was carried out in Benue State. 

Similarly in August 2021, the EFCC obtained a court order to restrict a Kogi State salary bailout account domiciled in Sterling Bank Plc which had over ₦20 billion. The ₦20 billion loan meant to augment the salary payment and running cost of the State Government was kept in an interest-yielding account with Sterling Bank Plc. The EFCC approached a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos with an ex-parte application brought pursuant to section 44 (2) of the Constitution and section 34(1) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act.

The Commission told the court it was acting to preserve the loan. The argument was not about politics, but about preservation. The courts agreed that the EFCC, as Nigeria’s anti-graft agency, has the power to take such steps in the interest of the public.

In both Edo, Benue and Kogi, the principle was upheld: investigation must not be defeated by dissipation. You cannot investigate a moving target.

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 five 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 must separate politics from institution-building. President Tinubu’s decision to reverse the freeze is his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief. It may have been driven by political considerations, the need to maintain national stability or to avoid a constitutional standoff with a state government. 

But political expediency must not become legal precedent. If we create a culture where any state under investigation can immediately run to the presidency to unfreeze accounts, we effectively nullify the EFCC Act. We tell every governor: move the money first, explain later. That is a dangerous message.

Institutions grow strong when they are allowed to do their job without interference. The EFCC will never be effective if every preventive action is overturned within days by political pressure. 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.

The EFCC must explain, in measured terms, that a freeze is not guilt. It is due diligence. But none of that erases the core truth: Olukoyede acted to protect Osun’s treasury. For that, he deserves commendation, not public fury.

History will not remember the press statements or the political tweets. History will remember whether the money meant for Osun people was protected or lost. To defend public funds is to defend democracy itself. To attack the EFCC for doing its job is to invite impunity into Government Houses.

The EFCC Chairman made the right call. In freezing Osun’s accounts, he reminded every public officer in Nigeria of one simple fact: the treasury does not belong to you, it belongs to the people. Nigerians should rally around Olukoyede in his drive to tackle graft in our country. 

Jacob writes from Abuja