Calls for the resignation or removal of the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ola Olukoyede, intensified on Friday following the controversial freezing of accounts belonging to the Osun State Government.
Opposition parties, political groups and several Nigerians accused the anti-graft agency of political interference, particularly because the action came just days before the August 15 governorship election in the state.
The Accord Party and New Nigeria People’s Party were among those demanding Olukoyede’s resignation, while some Nigerians called on President Bola Tinubu to sack him if he refused to step down.
However, the controversy took a new turn after a certified copy of a Federal High Court order revealed that the EFCC had obtained judicial authorisation to freeze three accounts belonging to the Osun State Government.
The development appeared to contradict earlier public statements surrounding the legal basis for the account restriction.
The EFCC had on Wednesday placed a Post No Bill order on the Osun State Government’s account with First Bank, citing suspicious transactions and an ongoing investigation into alleged diversion of public funds and money laundering.
The commission said it had been investigating the account since March 2026 and maintained that it had the statutory power to restrict an account for up to 72 hours where there was reasonable suspicion of fraudulent activity.
However, on Thursday, President Tinubu directed the EFCC to unfreeze the account, describing the action as embarrassing.
The President’s directive triggered widespread reactions, with the EFCC’s statement on the matter reportedly generating more than 4,500 comments on X, many of them critical of the timing of the action.
A post by the President’s Special Adviser, Bayo Onanuga, announcing the reversal also attracted more than 1,600 comments, with several users accusing the government of political interference.
Accord demands Olukoyede’s resignation
Speaking at a press conference in Abuja on Friday, the National Chairman of the Accord Party, Maxwell Mgbudem, said the party had lost confidence in the leadership of the EFCC.
Mgbudem accused the commission of partisanship in Osun State politics and demanded Olukoyede’s immediate resignation.
He said the EFCC chairman should “toe the path of honour” by stepping down, adding that President Tinubu should sack him if he refused to resign.
According to him, the development had embarrassed the President, the Federal Government and the people of Osun State, while damaging the credibility of the anti-corruption agency.
The party also urged security agencies and other institutions involved in the Osun election to remain impartial and operate strictly within the law.
The National Chairman of the NNPP, Major Agbo, also supported calls for Olukoyede’s resignation, although he expressed concern about the implications of the President’s directive for the independence of the EFCC.
Agbo said the President should have allowed the commission to complete its investigation, arguing that the timing of the EFCC’s action should not necessarily invalidate its mandate.
He, however, said the President’s directive to unfreeze the account created the impression that the anti-graft agency was subject to presidential instructions.
Asked if he supported calls for Olukoyede’s resignation, Agbo said, “Yes. Sadly, it has to happen.”
Obidient movement backs resignation call
The National Coordinator of the Obidient Movement Worldwide, Dr Yunusa Tanko, also advised Olukoyede to consider stepping down to protect his reputation.
Tanko said the President’s intervention had created the impression that the EFCC chairman was acting under political influence.
He argued that Olukoyede appeared to have attempted to assert the commission’s independence but was subsequently undermined by the President’s directive.
Presidency says Olukoyede remains in office
Despite the growing calls for his removal, sources within the Presidency dismissed speculation that Olukoyede was about to lose his job.
One presidential source said Tinubu’s frustration was directed at the timing and public perception of the EFCC’s action rather than the chairman’s leadership.
“No, he still has his job. The fact that the President said he was embarrassed by the EFCC’s move does not mean he will be fired,” the source said.
Another source, who claimed to have spoken with Olukoyede on Wednesday night, also confirmed that the EFCC chairman remained in office.
“Someone had to take the fall, and in this case, it is the EFCC chairman. That alone is not a basis for dismissal,” the source said.
Falana faults Tinubu’s directive
Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, also opposed calls for Olukoyede’s resignation, arguing that the EFCC acted within its statutory powers.
Falana said the President had no legal authority to direct the affairs of the anti-graft agency.
He argued that if the EFCC had obtained a court order to restrict the accounts, the appropriate legal procedure would have been for the Osun State Government to challenge the order in court.
“The President has no such power. In fact, there is no legal nexus between the President and the EFCC,” Falana said.
He added that the EFCC had the power under the law to freeze an account for up to 72 hours where it suspected fraudulent activity before obtaining a court order.
The National Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party, Ken Asogwa, also rejected the call for Olukoyede’s resignation, describing it as an extreme position.
However, he criticised the President’s intervention, saying it raised serious concerns about the independence of the EFCC.
Reps minority caucus questions government’s position
The controversy also drew criticism from the minority caucus of the House of Representatives, which accused the Federal Government of contradicting itself over the account restriction.
In a statement signed by its Leader, Fredrick Agbedi, and spokesman, Afam Ogene, the caucus described Tinubu’s directive as a “panicky, belated afterthought.”
The lawmakers questioned the conflicting explanations surrounding the legal basis for the EFCC’s action.
They specifically pointed to a statement by EFCC spokesman Wilson Uwujaren, who reportedly said on national television that the restriction was imposed without a valid court order.
However, later that same day, the President directed the EFCC to return to court to vacate the restriction.
“So, which is it? Was there a court order or not?” the lawmakers asked.
They accused the Federal Government of using federal institutions to mount pressure on the Osun State Government ahead of the governorship election.
The caucus also alleged that statutory allocations meant for Osun local governments had been withheld and accused security agencies of failing to adequately respond to political violence in the state.
Court document confirms EFCC obtained freezing order
However, a certified true copy of a Federal High Court order obtained by the EFCC and seen by Saturday PUNCH has introduced a significant development into the controversy.
The document showed that the EFCC secured a court order on August 5, 2026, authorising the freezing of three accounts belonging to the Osun State Government.
The order was issued by Justice M.G. Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1750/2026, following an ex-parte application filed by the EFCC chairman.
The court authorised Olukoyede or any officer empowered by him to direct the affected banks to freeze the accounts pending the conclusion of investigation and possible prosecution.
According to the order, the accounts were being investigated over alleged diversion of public funds and money laundering.
The affected accounts include the Osun State Government Federal Allocation Account domiciled with First Bank and two Osun State Joint Allocation Accounts with Zenith Bank.
The revelation of the court order is expected to further intensify the debate over the EFCC’s action, the President’s intervention and the extent of the commission’s independence ahead of the August 15 Osun governorship election.
Comments