06/08/2026
While commendation of the President for directing that the EFCC unfreeze the accounts of Osun State may be justified, the episode exposes deeper institutional failings in Nigeria's system of governance. A President should not have to intervene directly in the operational decisions of a body that is intended to function independently. If any directive was necessary, it ought properly to have been addressed to the Attorney General of the Federation, who is constitutionally responsible for the supervision of federal legal affairs, rather than to the EFCC itself. The fact that presidential intervention was required raises important questions about the independence of public institutions and adherence to the rule of law.
A President who is applauded today for directing the EFCC may well feel justified in directing INEC tomorrow. That is precisely why the independence of public institutions must be preserved and respected. Institutional safeguards exist not for moments of convenience, but to prevent executive overreach and to uphold the rule of law.
One cannot help but question why a judge, who ought to have taken judicial notice of the political tension that has pervaded Osun State in the lead-up to this election, considered it appropriate to grant the order sought by the EFCC.
On this occasion, the Commission appears to have acted beyond the bounds of its proper role, raising serious concerns about the exercise of its powers in a politically charged environment. The judiciary, as the guardian of the rule of law, bears a heightened responsibility to ensure that its processes are not perceived as facilitating actions that could undermine public confidence in democratic governance.
