Breaking

EFCC vs Osun: Tinubu bowed to public outrage, not voluntary act – ADC

Published

3 weeks ago

August 6, 2026

Faith Okoye

Facebook X

The African Democratic Congress, ADC, has said the order of President Bola Tinubu to
reverse the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts was a result of public outrage rather than voluntary act.

This is contained in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, on Thursday.

Abdullahi described Tinubu’s press statement as curious and unusual, welcoming the directive but questioned his claim that the EFCC acted on the basis of a court order.

He noted that the President was either misinformed or he had deliberately misrepresented the situation.

According to him, Tinubu’s admission that he ordered the EFCC to discontinue the action undermines claims of the agency’s independence or neutrality, thereby confirming that the President actually directs the operational conduct of the anti-graft agencies.

He stressed that the anti-graft agency would not have acted so recklessly in the first if it did not presume the authorisation of the federal government.

“While the ADC welcomes President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision directing the EFCC to immediately discontinue its attempt to freeze the accounts of the Osun State Government, the President’s statement has raised far more troubling questions than it answers.

“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. This is a remarkable new twist.

“In all of its public statements on this matter, the EFCC never once claimed that it had obtained a court order. The Commission consistently defended its actions on the basis of its statutory powers and what it described as “preventive mandate.” At no point did it inform Nigerians that a court had authorised its actions.

“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? Why was it not mentioned by the EFCC spokesperson when he appeared on Arise Television on Thursday morning? If no such order exists, why would the president introduce one into the public narrative? It is either the President was misinformed or he had chosen to misrepresent the facts. Either possibility is deeply disturbing,” the statement read in part.