Pressure Mounts On EFCC Chairman To Quit  Over Osun Account Freeze

The controversy surrounding the freezing of accounts belonging to the Osun State Government has intensified, with opposition parties and several Nigerians calling for the removal of the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ola Olukoyede.

The EFCC’s action, which occurred shortly before the August 15 governorship election in Osun State, has generated widespread criticism, with opponents accusing the anti-corruption agency of political bias.

Some political groups have demanded that Olukoyede resign, while others have urged President Bola Tinubu to dismiss him if he refuses to step down.

The dispute escalated after Tinubu directed the EFCC to reverse the restriction placed on the state government’s account, saying the development had embarrassed his administration.

EFCC says action followed financial investigation

The EFCC had on Wednesday directed First Bank to place a Post No Bill restriction on an account belonging to the Osun State Government.

The commission said the account was under investigation over suspected financial irregularities and that its investigation had commenced in March 2026.

According to the anti-graft agency, it had legal authority to temporarily restrict an account when there was reasonable suspicion of fraudulent transactions.

The commission’s position, however, came under intense scrutiny because of the proximity of the action to the governorship election.

The situation became more controversial on Thursday when the Presidency announced that the President had ordered the account to be unfrozen.

The directive triggered a fresh debate over the independence of the EFCC and the extent of presidential authority over the commission.

Accord Party demands Olukoyede’s resignation

The Accord Party has become one of the strongest voices calling for the EFCC chairman’s removal.

Speaking in Abuja, the party’s National Chairman, Maxwell Mgbudem, accused the commission of acting in a manner that suggested political partisanship.

Mgbudem said the EFCC had damaged public confidence in its leadership through what he described as its handling of the Osun matter.

He urged Olukoyede to resign voluntarily, arguing that his departure would help restore confidence in the anti-corruption agency.

The Accord leader further said that if the chairman refused to resign, President Tinubu should remove him from office.

The party also called on security agencies participating in the Osun election to remain neutral and ensure that their activities were guided by the law rather than political interests.

NNPP backs call for removal

The National Chairman of the New Nigeria People’s Party, Major Agbo, also expressed support for calls for Olukoyede’s resignation.

However, Agbo’s position differed in one important respect. He argued that the EFCC should have been allowed to complete its investigation instead of having the President intervene.

According to him, the timing of the restriction could be questioned, but the commission should nevertheless have been permitted to perform its statutory duties.

Agbo said the President’s intervention raised concerns about the EFCC’s independence because it suggested that the commission could be compelled to reverse decisions by presidential directive.

He subsequently confirmed that he supported the demand for Olukoyede to leave office.

Obidient Movement warns EFCC boss

The National Coordinator of the Obidient Movement Worldwide, Yunusa Tanko, also advised Olukoyede to consider resigning.

Tanko said the EFCC chairman could protect his reputation by voluntarily leaving office rather than remaining at the centre of an increasingly damaging controversy.

He argued that the President’s decision to intervene had created an impression that the EFCC was not entirely free from political influence.

Tanko said the episode had placed Olukoyede in an awkward position because the EFCC chairman appeared to be defending the agency’s independence while simultaneously having to comply with a directive from the Presidency.

Social media backlash intensifies

The controversy has also generated considerable reaction online.

The EFCC’s explanation of its decision reportedly attracted thousands of comments on X, with many users questioning the timing of the restriction.

A post by the President’s Special Adviser, Bayo Onanuga, announcing the President’s intervention similarly attracted a large number of responses.

Some Nigerians called for Olukoyede to be dismissed, while others accused the EFCC of serving political interests.

Several commenters argued that the chairman should resign because the President’s directive had publicly undermined his authority.

Others went further, alleging that the development demonstrated the use of federal institutions against political opponents ahead of elections.

Presidency says Olukoyede remains in office

Despite the mounting criticism, there is no indication that Olukoyede has been removed.

Sources within the Presidency told Saturday PUNCH that the President’s displeasure was primarily about the timing and public perception of the EFCC’s action rather than the chairman’s continued leadership of the commission.

One source said the President’s decision to express his embarrassment did not amount to a decision to dismiss Olukoyede.

Another source reportedly confirmed that the EFCC chairman remained in office following the disagreement.

The source argued that differences between a President and an appointee did not necessarily mean the appointee would be fired.

Falana challenges presidential intervention

Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has defended the EFCC’s actions while questioning the President’s intervention.

Falana argued that the commission had acted within the powers granted to it by law.

He maintained that where an agency had obtained a court order, the proper legal procedure for challenging that order was to return to court rather than rely on a presidential directive.

The senior lawyer also rejected the suggestion that the EFCC had acted without legal authority.

He pointed to the commission’s statutory powers to temporarily restrict accounts when there are reasonable grounds to suspect financial crimes.

Falana further questioned why the President had not focused similar attention on other serious security concerns in Osun State.

Labour Party raises independence concerns

The Labour Party has also expressed reservations about the situation, although it does not support the demand for Olukoyede’s resignation.

The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Ken Asogwa, said the more troubling issue was the apparent ability of the President to direct the EFCC to reverse an operational decision.

According to Asogwa, the incident could create the perception that the commission is subject to political instructions.

He argued that if the President could direct the EFCC to release an account, Nigerians could reasonably wonder whether similar directives could be issued in other investigations.

For the Labour Party, therefore, the controversy is less about Olukoyede personally and more about the institutional independence of the EFCC.

House minority caucus questions government’s explanation

The dispute has also attracted criticism from members of the minority caucus in the House of Representatives.

The lawmakers accused the Federal Government of giving contradictory explanations concerning the legal basis for the restriction.

In a statement signed by Minority Leader Fredrick Agbedi and spokesman Afam Ogene, the caucus described the President’s intervention as a reaction to public pressure.

The lawmakers questioned statements attributed to EFCC spokesman Wilson Uwujaren concerning the existence of a court order.

They argued that if the account had been restricted without a valid court order, as allegedly stated by the EFCC spokesman, it was unclear why the President subsequently directed the commission to return to court to have an order vacated.

The lawmakers therefore demanded clarification over whether a court order existed and who had authorised the initial restriction.

They also accused the Federal Government of placing economic pressure on Osun State ahead of the election.

According to the caucus, statutory allocations meant for local governments in the state had allegedly been withheld, which they described as an attempt to weaken grassroots administration.

The lawmakers also raised allegations of political violence and claimed that federal security agencies had failed to adequately respond to the situation.

They warned that the developments in Osun could serve as a precedent for the involvement of federal institutions in future elections.

Court document backs EFCC’s account

Amid the conflicting claims, a certified copy of a Federal High Court order has provided evidence that the EFCC obtained judicial authorisation to restrict three accounts.