The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has defended its decision to place a temporary restriction on one of the Osun State Government’s bank accounts, maintaining that the measure was legally justified and necessary to safeguard public funds while investigations continue into suspected financial transactions.
The anti-graft agency said its intervention was based on intelligence gathered over recent days, during which investigators reportedly detected unusual movements of money from the affected account.
According to the commission, the transactions raised sufficient concerns to warrant immediate action in line with its statutory responsibilities.
Speaking during an interview on Arise Television on Thursday, EFCC Director of Public Affairs, Wilson Uwujaren, rejected allegations that the commission acted outside the law.
He insisted that the agency possesses clear legal authority to impose a temporary restriction on suspicious accounts even before approaching a court for further orders.
Uwujaren explained that the commission’s action was preventive rather than punitive. He noted that the objective was to preserve the integrity of the account while investigators verify the legitimacy of the financial activities observed over the past week.
According to him, the restriction affects only one specific account belonging to the Osun State Government and should not be interpreted as a freeze on all government accounts.
He emphasized that reports suggesting the state’s finances had been completely blocked were inaccurate and misleading.
He stated that the state government still has unrestricted access to its other accounts and can continue to fund government operations, including the payment of salaries, execution of projects and other statutory obligations.
The EFCC spokesman disclosed that investigators observed multiple transfers of substantial sums from the account to several corporate entities within a relatively short period.
While he did not reveal the identities of the companies involved or the exact amounts transferred, he said the pattern of transactions prompted the commission to intervene without delay.
Uwujaren argued that the EFCC would have failed in its duty if it ignored the financial movements and later discovered that public resources had been diverted or misappropriated.
He maintained that Nigerians expect the commission to act promptly whenever suspicious transactions involving public funds are detected.
According to him, protecting government resources remains one of the commission’s primary responsibilities, regardless of the political climate or timing of elections.
He also dismissed suggestions that the decision was influenced by the approaching Osun governorship election, stressing that criminal investigations cannot be suspended because of political activities.
Uwujaren explained that the commission acted strictly on the basis of intelligence and available evidence rather than political considerations.
He added that delaying intervention because of an election timetable could have allowed questionable transactions to continue unchecked.
Addressing concerns over the legality of the restriction, the EFCC spokesman cited relevant provisions of Nigerian law which, according to him, empower the commission to temporarily restrict access to bank accounts under investigation.
He specifically referenced Section 34 of the EFCC Act as well as Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
Uwujaren explained that these provisions authorize the commission to place a temporary restriction on an account where suspicious financial activities have been identified.
He further clarified that such restrictions are not indefinite. Under the law, the commission can maintain the restriction for up to 72 hours before seeking judicial approval if investigators determine that additional time is required.
According to him, this legal framework allows investigators to preserve evidence and prevent funds from being moved beyond the reach of law enforcement while appropriate legal processes are initiated.
The latest controversy follows an earlier disclosure by the EFCC that it has been investigating the Osun State Government since March 2026 over the alleged diversion and questionable management of approximately ₦11 billion.
The funds under investigation reportedly include allocations from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), Ecology Funds and various Intervention Funds received by the state government.
The commission previously revealed that several officials connected with the management of the state’s finances, including the Accountant-General, had already been questioned as part of the ongoing investigation.
Although the EFCC has not announced any criminal charges, the investigation remains active as investigators continue to examine financial records and transactions linked to the funds.
The commission has repeatedly emphasized that the temporary restriction on the account is one aspect of a broader investigation aimed at establishing whether public resources were lawfully managed.
However, the action has generated strong opposition from the Osun State Government.
Governor Ademola Adeleke described the restriction as unlawful and demanded an explanation from EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede, insisting that the commission should justify its decision before the Nigerian public.
The state government argued that the restriction could interfere with normal financial administration and questioned the timing of the action, especially with the state’s political environment becoming increasingly active.
Adding a legal perspective, Osun State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Oluwole Jimi-Bada (SAN), maintained that while the EFCC has constitutional authority to investigate suspected financial crimes, it cannot legally freeze or restrict a government account without first obtaining an order from a competent court.
He disclosed that the state government had been advised to challenge the commission’s action before the Federal High Court in Osogbo in order to obtain judicial clarification on the scope of the EFCC’s powers.
The disagreement has triggered fresh debate among legal practitioners and political observers regarding the balance between anti-corruption enforcement and constitutional safeguards protecting public institutions.
Despite the criticism, the EFCC remains firm that its action complies fully with existing laws and represents a necessary step to prevent possible loss of public funds.
The commission reiterated that the restriction is temporary and would be lifted once investigators conclude that the transactions connected to the account no longer raise suspicion or once all legal requirements have been satisfied.
As investigations continue, the outcome of the legal challenge expected from the Osun State Government could further clarify the extent of the EFCC’s authority to temporarily restrict government accounts during financial crime investigations.
Ireport247news