*Photo: President Bola Tinubu*
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has welcomed President Bola Tinubu’s directive to reverse the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts but questioned his claim that the EFCC acted on the basis of a court order, noting that the President was either misinformed or he had deliberately misrepresented the situation.
In a statement signed by Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the National Publicity Secretary of the ADC, the party argued that the President’s admission that he directed the EFCC to discontinue the action undermines claims of the agency’s independence or neutrality, thereby confirming that the President actually directs the operational conduct of the anti-graft agencies.
The party also describes the reversal as a response to sustained public outrage rather than a voluntary act of restraint, noting that the anti-graft agency would not have acted so recklessly in the first if it did not presume the authorisation of the federal government.
The full statement read:
While the African Democratic Congress (ADC) welcomes President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision directing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to immediately discontinue its attempt to freeze the accounts of the Osun State Government, the President’s statement has raised far more troubling questions than it answers.
What we find most curious about the statement is the President’s repeated reference to an alleged court order authorising the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts. This is a remarkable new twist. In all of its public statements on this matter, the EFCC never once claimed that it had obtained a court order. The Commission consistently defended its actions on the basis of its statutory powers and what it described as “preventive mandate.”” At no point did it inform Nigerians that a court had authorised its actions.
The obvious question, therefore, is: where did the president obtain the information that a court order existed? If such an order exists, why was it never mentioned by the EFCC in its statement while defending one of the most controversial actions it has taken in recent times? Why was it not mentioned by the EFCC spokesperson when he appeared on Arise Television on Thursday morning? If no such order exists, why would the president introduce one into the public narrative? It is either the President was misinformed or he had chosen to misrepresent the facts. Either possibility is deeply disturbing.
The President also insists that he does not interfere in the operational activities of anti-corruption agencies, yet in the same statement he publicly announces that he has directed the EFCC to approach the court, vacate the alleged order, and discontinue its case. That admission raises an uncomfortable question.
If the President possesses the authority to direct the EFCC to withdraw from court proceedings because the political consequences may affect an election, then it follows that he possesses the authority to direct the Commission in other operational matters as well. The net implication is that the carefully cultivated argument that these agencies operate entirely independently collapses under the weight of the President’s own statement.
Indeed, the presidency’s attempt at strategic distancing has achieved precisely the opposite. Rather than demonstrating institutional independence, it confirms that the presidency could whimsically intervene or direct one way or another based on political considerations.
Another curious feature of the statement is its form. This is not a communication issued through the Office of the President, the Presidency, or the usual government channels. It is a personal statement signed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu himself. This is quite unusual, and it raises the question of why the President feels the need to personally sign a press statement on a matter such as this? If all that the President wanted to achieve was to get the EFCC to reverse itself, why did he not simply tell them to do so instead of issuing a press statement signed by the President himself. This solo performance by the president actually exposes more than it was intended to conceal.
The truth is that it was not a sudden concern for democratic integrity that produced this dramatic reversal. It was the overwhelming condemnation from Nigerians, civil society, political parties, and the wider public who recognised the account freezing for what it was: an extraordinary abuse of state power meant to influence the outcome of the governorship election.
Finally, since the President has now demonstrated that he can direct federal agencies to discontinue proceedings based on pretension to public interest or democratic fairness, perhaps he should also consider directing the ICPC and its counsel to stop opposing the bail application of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai.
Signed:
Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi
National Publicity Secretary
African Democratic Congress (ADC)