Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has criticised President Bola Tinubu’s intervention in the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts. He argued that the President should have acted through the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) instead of directing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Falana maintained that although restoring the state’s access to its funds was a welcome development, the process should have respected the EFCC’s statutory independence and followed established legal procedures.
Falana questions Tinubu’s approach
According to Falana, the EFCC obtained a court order before freezing the Osun State Government’s accounts. He said any move to reverse the action should also have gone through the courts rather than a direct presidential intervention. He argued that the President should have recognised the anti-graft agency’s independent status and allowed the legal process to run its course.
“In intervening in the Osun State crisis, President Tinubu ought to have respected the independent status of the EFCC and the due process of law.
“As far as the law is concerned, the EFCC chairman is not at the beck and call of the President.”
Osun government had already gone to court
Falana noted that the Osun State Government had already challenged the freezing order before Tinubu intervened. He said the state’s legal action provided the appropriate avenue for resolving the dispute. According to him, the existence of the court proceedings meant the matter should have remained within the judicial process until the court reached a decision.
“From the information at our disposal, the EFCC obtained a court order and the Osun State Government had approached the court to vacate or set aside the ex parte order freezing the account.”
Falana recommends constitutional process
The senior lawyer said President Tinubu could have directed the Attorney-General of the Federation to handle the matter under Section 174 of the Constitution. He explained that the AGF has the constitutional authority to take over criminal proceedings and withdraw a case where necessary. Falana added that the Attorney-General could have applied to vacate the court order or discontinue the case instead of asking the EFCC to reverse its action.
“The President should have directed the AGF to take over the case under Section 174 of the Constitution with a view to withdrawing the case or discharging the ex parte.
“Once the AGF takes over the case, he will apply to vacate the order or withdraw the entire case.”
AGF could also have supported Osun’s application
Falana further stated that the Attorney-General had another legal option available. Rather than taking over the matter, he said the AGF could simply have declined to oppose the application already filed by the Osun State Government.
“In the alternative, the AGF may decide not to oppose the motion filed by the Osun State Government to vacate the ex parte order.”
Falana welcomes final outcome
Despite criticising the President’s approach, Falana welcomed the eventual restoration of the state’s access to its funds. He suggested that the outcome ultimately benefited the parties involved, even though he disagreed with the procedure that led to it. Quoting English playwright William Shakespeare, Falana concluded:
“But as William Shakespeare said in the title of one of his plays, ‘All is well that ends well.'”
Read also: Tinubu intervenes, orders EFCC to lift freeze on Osun accounts
