Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and Transparency International Nigeria have defended the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) decision to restrict the accounts of the Osun State Government, arguing that the protection of public funds should take precedence where there are credible concerns about their possible diversion or misuse.
CISLAC said the controversy surrounding the restriction had overlooked a fundamental question: “Who protects the money of the people of Osun when alarm bells ring?”
The organisation, through its Executive Director and Head of Transparency International Nigeria, Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, said public funds belonged to citizens and not to governors, political parties, or administrations.
It argued that salaries, pensions, healthcare, road projects, and school feeding programmes all depended on ensuring that public resources remained available for their intended purposes.
According to CISLAC, once public funds were moved into questionable channels, recovering them could become difficult.
It therefore defended the EFCC’s use of account restrictions as a preventive measure designed to preserve funds and evidence while investigations were being conducted.
“The intent is simple: pause first, audit second, prosecute third if necessary,” the organisation said.
CISLAC rejected the argument that restricting state government accounts necessarily amounted to paralysing governance.
It said the more important question was whether a temporary restriction to facilitate an investigation was more damaging than the possible disappearance of billions of naira intended for public services.
“What paralyses governance more — a temporary audit, or the disappearance of billions meant for the public good?” it asked.
The organisation stressed that allocations and other public funds at the federal, state, and local government levels were intended to finance government operations and public services, including education, healthcare, security, infrastructure, and the general welfare of citizens.
It said the EFCC’s intervention should therefore be viewed in the context of its statutory responsibility to prevent economic and financial crimes and preserve assets that may be at risk during an investigation.
CISLAC also cited previous interventions by the EFCC involving state government funds, including cases involving Edo, Benue, and Kogi states.
It said that during the last governorship election in Edo State, the EFCC restricted state government accounts following petitions and intelligence reports concerning alleged contract inflation and diversion of federal allocations.
According to the organisation, about ₦12 billion was preserved through the intervention, which it said was intended to prevent funds from being moved beyond the reach of investigators before a forensic audit could be conducted.
CISLAC also referred to the EFCC’s action in Kogi State in August 2021, when the Commission obtained a Federal High Court order restricting a salary bailout account containing more than ₦20 billion.
The money, according to the statement, was a loan intended to augment salary payments and the running costs of the Kogi State Government.
CISLAC said the EFCC had approached the Federal High Court in Lagos pursuant to Section 44(2) of the Constitution and Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act, arguing that the restriction was necessary to preserve the funds.
The group said the court accepted the principle that the EFCC could take such steps in the public interest.
It argued that the same principle applied to the Osun controversy: investigations should not be defeated by the dissipation of funds.
“You cannot investigate a moving target,” it said.
CISLAC said the EFCC should act swiftly where credible petitions, intelligence reports, or audit queries indicated a risk of large-scale movement of public funds.
“A state account can be emptied in 24 hours. A court case can take five years,” it stated, arguing that waiting until the conclusion of a criminal trial before taking preventive action could leave little or nothing to recover.
The organisation nevertheless said EFCC account freezes should be accompanied by safeguards, including clear timelines and judicial oversight.
It proposed that restrictions should ordinarily have a 30-to-60-day window within which the EFCC should conclude its preliminary investigation and approach the court where further action was required.
CISLAC further urged the EFCC to clearly communicate that an account freeze was not a declaration of guilt but a preventive investigative measure.
It commended EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede and his team for what it described as an effort to protect Osun State’s treasury.
According to the organisation, the central issue should not be whether the funds belonged to a government controlled by a particular political party, but whether public resources were being adequately protected.
“The treasury does not belong to you; it belongs to the people,” CISLAC said.
It urged Nigerians to support anti-corruption efforts aimed at protecting public resources and strengthening democracy.
