The legal battle over the restriction placed on the Osun State Government’s statutory allocation account has intensified, with counsel to the state government, Prof. Mubarak Adekilekun (SAN), accusing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of acting outside the law.
Adekilekun, who spoke on Channels Television’s Politics Today on Friday, maintained that the EFCC failed to comply with what he described as a mandatory legal requirement before directing First Bank to place a Post No Debit (PND) restriction on the account.
According to the Senior Advocate of Nigeria, neither the Osun State Government nor First Bank was served with a court order authorising the restriction.
He said the EFCC transmitted a letter to First Bank directing the bank to restrict the account, but that when the correspondence was forwarded to the state government, it was discovered that no court order accompanied the directive.
Adekilekun argued that the absence of such an order rendered the EFCC’s action legally questionable, particularly under the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.
“You will recall that after the letter was written to First Bank in Osun, which in turn transmitted the letter to the state government, the requirement of the law in this regard is that a court order must be issued and served on, especially, First Bank,” he said.
The lawyer further stated that while the EFCC has broad statutory powers to investigate suspected financial crimes and take steps to prevent the dissipation of suspected proceeds of crime, such powers, in his view, cannot be exercised without regard to judicial safeguards.
He specifically cited Section 7 of the Money Laundering Act, arguing that the provision requires the commission to obtain and serve a court order before restricting access to an account.
“They were trying to justify their action that if they do not do it, the account could be compromised. Yes, we agree there are some provisions of the law that say EFCC can, but if you interpret this in conjunction with Section 7 of the MLA, it says that there must be a court order served on that party,” Adekilekun said.
He rejected the argument that the EFCC could first impose a temporary restriction and subsequently seek judicial approval within 72 hours.
“EFCC must get a court order. The laws are there,” he insisted.
The Senior Advocate also challenged suggestions that the account was connected to money laundering, stressing that the account was established to receive statutory allocations accruing to the state from the Federation Account.
“You can’t do an act of this magnitude and just say you are transmitting a letter to put a PND on a state government account,” he said.
“The only money that is being transferred to that account is from the Federation Account, pure federal domain.”
However, the position of the Osun State Government’s legal team has brought it into direct contrast with that of another prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, who earlier defended the legal authority of the EFCC to restrict state government accounts in appropriate circumstances.
Falana, also appearing on Channels Television, argued that the EFCC could lawfully impose a temporary restriction for up to 72 hours while seeking judicial approval, citing a 2022 Court of Appeal judgment involving the Benue State Government and the anti-graft agency.
According to Falana, the Court of Appeal decision affirmed the EFCC’s authority to place a Post No Debit restriction on an account for a limited period before obtaining the necessary judicial intervention.
“In this instance, the EFCC went to court, and the Federal High Court intervened based on information provided by the EFCC,” Falana said.
The conflicting interpretations by the two Senior Advocates have further deepened the legal controversy surrounding the EFCC’s action and raised fundamental questions about the extent of the commission’s powers over government accounts.
The controversy has also assumed a political dimension, coming only days before the August 15 governorship election in Osun State.
The restriction reportedly triggered political outrage and concerns that the inability of the state government to access its statutory funds could affect the payment of salaries, execution of government obligations and other financial activities.
President Bola Tinubu subsequently intervened in the dispute, reportedly directing the EFCC to approach the court to vacate the restriction and discontinue the action.
Despite the presidential intervention, questions remain over whether the Osun State Government will pursue its legal challenge against the EFCC.
Asked whether the state would continue with the case, Adekilekun said the decision remained with his client.
“Well, it depends on what my client thinks, which is the Osun State Government,” he said.
“If they give us the go-ahead, but I think and I believe that it should be tried.”
The dispute has consequently evolved beyond the immediate question of access to Osun’s statutory funds, with lawyers and political actors now locked in a wider debate over the limits of the EFCC’s enforcement powers.
At the heart of the controversy is a crucial legal question: can the EFCC restrict access to a state government’s statutory account on the strength of an administrative directive alone, or must it first obtain and serve a court order as demanded by the state government’s counsel?
While the EFCC’s mandate to investigate and prevent financial crimes is not in dispute, the Osun Government’s legal team insists that the commission’s powers must operate within the boundaries established by law and judicial oversight.
With the August 15 governorship election approaching, the dispute has therefore placed the EFCC, the Osun State Government and the courts at the centre of an increasingly contentious legal and political confrontation over financial control, constitutional autonomy and the limits of anti-corruption enforcement in Nigeria.