EFCC boss in sack storm over Osun account freeze

Calls for the removal of the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ola Olukoyede, intensified on Friday following the controversy surrounding the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts ahead of the August 15 governorship election.

 

Opposition parties and some Nigerians accused the anti-graft agency of political interference, alleging that the timing of the action could undermine the credibility of the election.

 

The Accord Party and the New Nigeria People’s Party called for Olukoyede’s resignation, while some Nigerians on social media urged President Bola Tinubu to sack him.

 

However, some voices cautioned against removing the EFCC chairman, arguing that the commission acted within its statutory mandate and that the controversy was primarily about the timing and subsequent presidential intervention.

 

The EFCC had on Wednesday placed a Post-No-Debit restriction on the Osun State Government’s accounts domiciled with First Bank and Zenith Bank, citing an ongoing investigation into alleged diversion of public funds and money laundering.

 

The commission said it had been investigating the state government since March 2026 and had observed suspicious movement of funds.

 

President Tinubu, however, on Thursday directed the EFCC to return to court and vacate the order freezing the accounts, saying actions by federal institutions were often attributed to him regardless of whether he had prior knowledge of them.

 

The President’s directive triggered fresh criticism of the EFCC and raised questions about the commission’s independence.

 

The National Chairman of the Accord Party, Maxwell Mgbudem, said the party had lost confidence in Olukoyede’s leadership, alleging that the EFCC had demonstrated partisanship in Osun State politics.

 

Mgbudem, who spoke at a world press conference at the party’s national secretariat in Abuja on Friday, said Olukoyede should resign or be removed by the President.

 

“Having demonstrated unprecedented partisanship in Osun State politics, assaulted the sensibilities of fellow compatriots and brought the nation to ridicule and disrepute before the international community, Accord has lost confidence in the current leadership of the EFCC.

 

“Accordingly, Accord demands the immediate resignation of the EFCC chairman. For embarrassing the President, the party, the government and people of Osun State, and fellow citizens, the EFCC chairman should toe the path of honour and tender his resignation.

 

“If he fails to resign, President Tinubu should sack him immediately to restore the integrity of the anti-graft agency,” he said.

 

Mgbudem insisted that there should be no “sacred cow” in efforts to strengthen the anti-corruption agency and Nigeria’s democratic institutions.

 

The National Chairman of the NNPP, Major Agbo, also backed calls for Olukoyede’s resignation but expressed concern about the implications of the President’s intervention 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 action did not necessarily invalidate the EFCC’s mandate.

 

“When I saw the President’s order directing that the account be unfrozen, I was surprised because, if I were him, I would have allowed the EFCC to do its job. It does not matter when it acted. The timing may have been wrong, but what is important is that it was carrying out its mandate,” he said.

 

He added, “But asking the EFCC to unfreeze the account does not speak well of the commission’s independence. The implication is that it takes orders from the President.”

 

Asked whether he supported calls for Olukoyede’s resignation, Agbo said, “Yes. Sadly, it has to happen.”

 

Also, the National Coordinator of the Obidient Movement Worldwide, Yunusa Tanko, advised Olukoyede to consider stepping down to protect his reputation.

 

“Ultimately, if I were Olukoyede, in order to save my reputation and integrity, I would leave while the ovation is loudest. Otherwise, there will be more problems for him in the near future,” he said.

 

Tanko said Tinubu’s directive had created the impression that the EFCC chairman was acting under political influence.

 

“The kind of response I got from the EFCC shows that Olukoyede tried to assert his independence. It seems the directive from a higher authority made him look like a puppet.

 

“So, the problem is actually with the person giving the directive, not the person executing it,” he added.

 

On social media, several users also called for Olukoyede’s removal, accusing the EFCC of political interference.

 

However, Presidency sources dismissed speculation that the controversy could cost Olukoyede his position.

 

According to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the President’s frustration was directed at the timing and optics of the EFCC’s action rather than the chairman’s leadership of the commission.

 

“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,” one of the sources said.

 

A second source, who said he spoke with Olukoyede on Wednesday night, said the 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.

 

Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, also disagreed with calls for Olukoyede’s resignation, arguing that the EFCC acted within its statutory mandate.

 

Falana, while speaking with journalists on Friday, said the President had no power to direct the affairs of the anti-graft agency.

 

“Has the President said the EFCC has no power? Did the EFCC act within its mandate? Don’t you know the EFCC went to court to obtain an order? If a court made an order against you, are you not supposed to approach the court to set it aside?

 

“The President has no such power. In fact, there is no legal nexus between the President and the EFCC,” he said.

 

Falana 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, however, said he would not support calls for Olukoyede’s resignation but expressed concern over the President’s intervention.

 

“The worrying part of Mr President’s directive is that if he could single-handedly direct the EFCC to unfreeze the Osun State Government’s account, then it follows that he can also direct the commission to take certain decisions,” Asogwa said.

 

Meanwhile, the minority caucus of the House of Representatives accused the Federal Government of contradicting itself over the account freeze.

 

The caucus described Tinubu’s directive as a “panicky, belated afterthought” and alleged that the development exposed a broader pattern of political pressure against the Osun State Government ahead of the election.

 

The lawmakers questioned the conflicting accounts surrounding the legal basis for the restriction, asking whether the EFCC had obtained a court order before freezing the accounts.

 

However, a certified true copy of the court order obtained by the EFCC showed that the commission secured an order of the Federal High Court in Abuja to freeze three accounts belonging to the Osun State Government.

 

The order, issued on August 5, 2026, by Justice M.G. Umar in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1750/2026, authorised the EFCC chairman or any officer empowered by him to instruct the affected banks to freeze the accounts pending the conclusion of investigation and prosecution.

 

The court said the accounts were “currently being investigated in a case of diversion of public funds and money laundering.”

 

The affected accounts are the Osun State Government Federal Allocation Account with First Bank, account number 2017170947, and two Osun State Joint Allocation Accounts with Zenith Bank, account numbers 1013374191 and 1014374909.

 

The controversy has continued to generate debate over the independence of anti-corruption agencies, the timing of investigations involving political actors and the extent of presidential authority over institutions established to fight corruption..