Human rights lawyer and activist, Deji Adeyanju, has launched a scathing attack on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s intervention in the controversy surrounding the freezing of Osun State Government accounts, accusing the President of exceeding his constitutional powers and warning that the episode could have grave consequences for Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
Adeyanju spoke on the Mic On Podcast, hosted by Seun Okinbaloye, where he examined the legal and political implications of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) decision to freeze the accounts and Tinubu’s subsequent directive ordering the commission to lift the restriction.
The activist distinguished between the legality of the EFCC’s action and the political questions surrounding its timing.
According to him, the anti-graft agency had the legal authority to seek restrictions on government accounts where there were grounds for suspicion of financial misconduct, and its action in the Osun case was backed by a court order.
“EFCC has the powers to freeze the accounts of the Federal Government, state governments and local governments under its Establishment Act and the Money Laundering Act,” Adeyanju said.
He explained that the commission could, in certain circumstances, temporarily restrict an account before obtaining judicial approval, particularly where investigators feared that funds could be moved beyond their reach.
However, Adeyanju questioned why the EFCC chose to act so close to the Osun State governorship election.
“If they had done so without a court order, they would still be within their rights. However, it is the timing. The timing is suspicious. Why are you doing it now? On the eve of an election? That is why many people believe it is political,” he said.
The lawyer noted that freezing government accounts was not unprecedented, pointing to previous actions involving state governments and other public institutions.
But he drew a sharp line between the EFCC obtaining a judicial order and the President subsequently attempting to reverse its effect through executive intervention.
ADEYANJU: PRESIDENT CANNOT CANCEL COURT ORDER BY ‘EXECUTIVE FIAT’
Adeyanju described Tinubu’s directive as a dangerous departure from constitutional procedure, arguing that the President could not simply order the EFCC to disregard a subsisting court order.
“The directive is laughable. It is insulting. The President acted ultra vires his powers. He cannot, by executive fiat, direct the EFCC or the court to vacate a freezing order,” he said.
According to him, if the Osun State Government believed that the freezing order was unlawful or unjustified, its remedy was to return to court and seek an order discharging or varying the restriction.
“That order should subsist until the Osun State Government approaches the court to set it aside,” he added.
Adeyanju insisted that the President was not a judicial authority and therefore could not substitute an executive directive for a judicial decision.
“The President is not a judge, and the EFCC is an independent agency of government,” he said.
He warned that normalising such intervention could create a dangerous precedent in which the executive branch could dictate the actions of institutions that are expected to operate independently.
“If this stands, one day the President could direct INEC to deregister a political party. Tomorrow somebody may ask the President to direct the Chief Justice of Nigeria to reverse a court judgment. That is not how constitutional democracy works,” he said.
‘TINUBU’S ACTION WEAKENS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS’
Adeyanju argued that the controversy could further erode public confidence in Nigeria’s institutions, particularly at a time when citizens already question whether government agencies can operate without political influence.
“What the President has done simply tells Nigerians that institutions are weak and that he controls them. He has taken away the independence of the commission,” he said.
He maintained that the strength of a democracy depends not merely on the existence of institutions but on their ability to exercise their lawful responsibilities without fear, favour or political pressure.
Adeyanju said allegations of selective enforcement and political interference had already damaged public confidence in the EFCC, warning that presidential intervention in a matter involving a judicial order could make the situation worse.
EFCC SHOULD EXPLAIN WHAT TRIGGERED ACCOUNT FREEZE
Despite defending the commission’s legal authority to seek the freezing order, Adeyanju criticised the EFCC for failing to adequately explain the financial transactions that allegedly prompted its investigation.
He argued that Nigerians deserved to know what the commission had discovered and why such an extraordinary step was considered necessary.
“If EFCC discovered suspicious transfers, it should have told Nigerians what it found. Was it billions? Was it millions? Who was receiving the money? Where was the money going?” he asked.
According to him, transparency would have helped distinguish a genuine financial investigation from allegations of political interference, particularly because the action occurred so close to an election.
He added that if investigators believed public funds were being diverted or deployed to influence the election, the public deserved enough information to understand the basis of the allegations.
‘SERVE THE BANKS FIRST’ — LAWYER DEFENDS EX PARTE PROCEDURE
Adeyanju also rejected criticism that the Osun State Government should have been notified before the accounts were frozen.
He defended the EFCC’s decision to approach the court ex parte, arguing that advance notice could have defeated the purpose of the restriction if there was a genuine fear that funds might be transferred.
“If they had served Osun State before serving the banks, they would simply have moved the money out of the accounts,” he said.
He maintained that the practical procedure in such circumstances was to serve the banks, enforce the order and subsequently notify the affected party.
ADEYANJU WARNS OF ‘FESTIVAL OF VOTE-BUYING’ IN OSUN
The lawyer also turned his attention to the political battle ahead of the Osun governorship election, warning that the contest could be dominated by financial inducements.
“I said weeks ago that Osun would become a festival of vote-buying. Both sides will attempt to buy votes,” Adeyanju said.
He nevertheless predicted that Governor Ademola Adeleke would remain the candidate to beat if the election was conducted freely, fairly and without political interference.
“If elections are conducted without political interference and without rigging, I believe Adeleke will win. He is extremely popular and he is on the ground,” he said.
OSUN ACCOUNT CONTROVERSY BECOMES TEST OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER
The dispute over the frozen accounts has consequently grown beyond a disagreement between a state government and an anti-corruption agency.
It now raises fundamental questions about the limits of presidential authority, the independence of anti-graft institutions and the authority of the judiciary.
At the heart of the controversy is a constitutional question: can an executive directive effectively neutralise an action taken by an independent government agency pursuant to a court order?
For Adeyanju, allowing such a precedent to stand would amount to a dangerous erosion of institutional checks and balances.
He argued that the judiciary must remain capable of issuing orders that bind all parties, while independent agencies must be allowed to perform their statutory duties without political interference.
The activist warned that when executive power begins to determine which judicial orders should be obeyed or which independent institutions should act, the principle of separation of powers becomes increasingly vulnerable.
“If independent agencies are constantly subjected to political interference, then institutional democracy cannot survive. Nations operate on the rule of law, not on executive directives,” he said.
The controversy surrounding Osun State has therefore become a broader battle over the meaning of institutional independence in Nigeria — and whether political authority can ever take precedence over established judicial and constitutional processes.