‘Where Is the Court Order?’ — ADC fires back at Tinubu over Osun accounts freeze

The African Democratic Congress, ADC, has asked President Bola Tinubu to disclose the court order he said the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, relied upon to freeze the accounts of the Osun State Government.

The party, in a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, welcomed Tinubu’s directive reversing the EFCC’s decision to freeze the state government’s accounts.

However, the ADC said the President’s reference to a court order represented “a remarkable new twist” because the anti-graft agency had not previously mentioned any such order in its public explanations for the action.

“In all of its public statements on this matter, the EFCC never once claimed that it had obtained a court order,” the party said, adding that the Commission had instead justified the freeze on the basis of its statutory powers and what it described as a “preventive mandate.”

The party said the EFCC maintained that position even when its spokesperson appeared on Arise Television on Thursday morning, arguing that there was no mention of any judicial backing for the action.

The development, according to the ADC, raised questions about the source of the President’s claim that a court order existed.

“The obvious question, therefore, is: where did the President obtain the information that a court order existed?” the party asked.

It added that if such an order existed, the EFCC’s failure to disclose it was inexplicable, while if no such order existed, the President’s introduction of the claim into the public discourse was troubling.

“It is either the President was misinformed or he had chosen to misrepresent the facts. Either possibility is deeply disturbing,” the statement said.

The ADC also questioned the President’s position on the operational independence of anti-corruption agencies.

The party noted that while Tinubu had consistently maintained that he did not interfere in the operations of anti-corruption agencies, he had publicly stated that he directed the EFCC to approach the court, vacate the alleged order and discontinue the case.

“If the President possesses the authority to direct the EFCC to withdraw from court proceedings… then it follows that he possesses the authority to direct the Commission in other operational matters as well,” the ADC said.

The party argued that such a position, in its view, undermined claims of institutional independence.

According to the ADC, the Presidency’s attempt to distance itself from interference in the operations of the EFCC had instead raised further questions about the extent of presidential influence over the agency.

“The claim of institutional independence collapses under the weight of the President’s own statement,” the party said.

The ADC also questioned the manner in which the President’s directive was communicated, noting that the statement was issued as a personal communication signed directly by Tinubu rather than through the Presidency’s conventional official channels.

The party described the format as “quite unusual,” arguing that the President could have privately instructed the EFCC to reverse its position if his sole objective was to have the agency discontinue the action.

“This solo performance by the President actually exposes more than it was intended to conceal,” the ADC said.