Counsel to the Osun State Government, Prof. Mubarak Adekilekun (SAN), has faulted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over its restriction of the state’s statutory allocation account, insisting that no court order was served on either the government or First Bank.
Adekilekun said the EFCC was required by law to obtain and serve a court order before placing a Post No Debit restriction on the account.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria made the submission on Friday while speaking on Channels Television’s Politics Today, amid the growing controversy over the anti-graft agency’s action.
The EFCC had reportedly written First Bank, where the Osun State Government’s statutory allocation account is domiciled, directing the bank to restrict withdrawals from the account.
The letter was later forwarded to the state government, but according to Adekilekun, the bank confirmed that no court order accompanied the directive.
“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.
“The letter was forwarded to Osun State Government, where First Bank confirmed that no court order was attached to it,” he said.
The lawyer acknowledged that the EFCC had powers under Nigerian law to investigate and take steps in cases involving suspected financial crimes.
He, however, argued that those powers must be exercised alongside the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.
According to him, Section 7 of the Act requires a court order to be obtained and served before such a restriction can be placed on the 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 restrict the account for up to 72 hours and then obtain a court order later.
Asked specifically whether the commission could place the restriction for 72 hours before seeking judicial approval, the lawyer maintained that a court order was required.
“See, in this regard, EFCC must get a court order. The laws are there.
“If you read the provision I’m talking about, Section 7 of the Money Laundering Act, it stipulates that court order must be served. It is there,” he insisted.
Adekilekun also dismissed suggestions that the account was being used for money laundering, saying it was a statutory account used by the state government to receive allocations from the Federation Account.
He argued that the nature of the account made the EFCC’s action particularly serious because the money paid into it came 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. The only money that is being transferred to that account is from the Federation Account, pure federal domain. That’s one of the requirements,” he said.
The dispute has generated strong legal arguments over the powers of the EFCC to restrict government accounts suspected of being linked to financial crimes.
While the Osun State Government’s lawyers have questioned the procedure followed by the commission, human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has taken a different position.
Falana, speaking earlier, argued that the EFCC had the legal authority to freeze or restrict a state government account, provided it obtained a court order within the period allowed by law.
He referred to a 2022 Court of Appeal judgment involving the Benue State Government and the EFCC, which he said recognised the commission’s power to place a Post No Debit restriction on an account for not more than 72 hours while seeking a court order.
According to Falana, the EFCC could take such urgent steps where it believed funds were at risk of being moved or concealed, but judicial approval would have to follow within the stipulated period.
“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 legal positions have added to the controversy surrounding the Osun account restriction, particularly because it came shortly before the August 15 governorship election in the state.
The development has also attracted political attention, with supporters of Governor Ademola Adeleke and members of the opposition trading accusations over the motive behind the EFCC action.
The Osun State Government has maintained that the restriction could affect its ability to carry out its normal financial obligations and run government operations.
The government had earlier indicated that it was prepared to challenge the EFCC’s action in court.
The controversy took another turn when President Bola Tinubu directed the EFCC to approach the court to vacate the order and discontinue the action.
The President’s intervention was linked to concerns about the timing of the restriction, coming shortly before the Osun governorship election.
The Osun election has attracted considerable political interest, with Adeleke seeking another term in office and opposition parties preparing for a closely watched contest.
The timing of the EFCC action has therefore become a major issue in the political debate, with the state government and its supporters questioning whether the restriction could have an effect on the administration’s activities ahead of the poll.
The EFCC, on its part, has continued to face the task of investigating suspected financial crimes while avoiding actions that could be interpreted as political interference.
The commission has not been accused by the Osun Government of lacking the power to investigate financial transactions. Rather, the major disagreement is over whether the legal procedure required for restricting the account was followed.
For Adekilekun, the absence of a court order attached to the letter sent to First Bank is central to the dispute.
He maintained that the state government would consider challenging the action in court if it received the necessary instruction to proceed.
Asked whether the state would continue with its planned legal action despite the President’s intervention, the lawyer said the decision rested with his client.
“Well, it depends on what my client thinks, which is the Osun State Government. If they give us the go-ahead, but I think and I believe that it should be tried,” he said.
The controversy has once again brought attention to the balance between the powers of anti-corruption agencies and the need to follow due process when government funds are involved.
It has also highlighted the importance of judicial oversight in the use of powers that can prevent an individual, company or government from accessing its funds.
As the legal and political arguments continue, the key question remains whether the EFCC complied with the relevant laws when it directed First Bank to restrict access to Osun State’s statutory allocation account.