*THE EFCC, THE FREEZING OF OSUN STATE’S ACCOUNTS AND THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL POWER
The reported unilateral freezing of the bank accounts of the Osun State Government by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), purportedly in the period immediately preceding the governorship election, presents a serious constitutional question that transcends anti-corruption enforcement. It goes to the heart of Nigeria’s federal structure, the autonomy of the States and the rule of law.
Nigeria is a federation established under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). By Sections 4 and 5(2), legislative and executive powers are distributed between the Federation and the States, with the executive authority of a State vested exclusively in the Governor. Sections 120–122 further guarantee the constitutional control of State finances, while Sections 125, 126 and 128 vest the auditing and legislative oversight of those finances in the Auditor-General for the State and the State House of Assembly. These provisions admit of no supervisory authority by a federal executive agency over the treasury of a federating State.
In *Attorney-General of Ekiti State v. EFCC & 17 Ors.* (Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti, 30 January 2018), the Court held that the EFCC lacks constitutional authority to investigate or supervise the finances of a State Government in a manner that supplants the constitutional responsibilities of the State Auditor-General and the House of Assembly. Although the Court of Appeal in *EFCC v. Attorney-General of Benue State & Ors.* (2022) held that State Government accounts are not absolutely immune from restraint, it equally underscored that any restraint must be effected strictly in accordance with an order of the court and due process of law. That decision cannot reasonably be construed as authorizing the EFCC to freeze the accounts of a State Government by administrative directive without prior judicial approval.
Indeed, Section 34 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 contemplates judicial intervention where property or bank accounts are to be restrained. The Act confers no express power on the Commission to unilaterally immobilize the accounts of a State Government. Any contrary interpretation would offend the doctrine of separation of powers by permitting an executive agency to exercise what is fundamentally a judicial function.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the constitutional autonomy of the States. In *Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1412) 217,* the Court reiterated that the Federal Government cannot assume powers over matters constitutionally reserved to the States. More recently, in *Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors.* (Local Government Financial Autonomy Case, 2024), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that all levels of government must operate strictly within the constitutional boundaries of Nigeria’s federal system and that constitutional autonomy cannot be undermined by executive expediency.
The timing of the reported freezing order, coming days before a governorship election, further heightens the constitutional imperative for strict adherence to due process. A measure capable of crippling the financial operations of a State Government during an electoral period should not rest on the unilateral discretion of an investigative agency. Such extraordinary action demands prior judicial scrutiny to preserve not only legality but also public confidence in the impartiality of state institutions.
The fight against corruption is undoubtedly a compelling constitutional objective. However, it cannot be pursued in disregard of the Constitution itself. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, noble ends do not justify unconstitutional means. Unless the EFCC obtained a valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction authorising the freezing of the accounts of the Osun State Government, the action would, in my respectful opinion, constitute an unconstitutional intrusion into the autonomy of a coordinate federating unit, violate the principles of due process and separation of powers, and be liable to be declared null and void by the courts.
*Alex Ter Adum, PhD
