Ademola Adeleke, the Governor of Osun State, has instituted a ₦2 billion complaint against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over what he described as the illegal freezing of the Federal Statutory Allocation Account of the state.
Channels TV adds that the complaint involves the Attorney General of Osun State as the second plaintiff while the Accountant General of the state as the third plaintiff.
The originating summons filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja by a team of attorneys led by M. T. Adekilekun, SAN, names the EFCC, its chairman and First Bank Nigeria Limited as the first, second and third defendants respectively.
The plaintiffs raised various legal concerns for the court’s determination, including:
“Whether, in view of the express provisions of sections 1, 6, 36, 44 and 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are clothed with the lawful authority to freeze, restrict, block, place a ‘post no debit’ order on, or otherwise interfere with the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the this Defendant, without due process of law.
“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are legally empowered to freeze, restrict, block, place a post no debit order on, or otherwise interfere with the Osun State Government Federal Statutory Allocation Account, Number 2017170947 maintained with the 3rd Defendant without first obtaining and serving on the Osun State Government a valid, subsisting, and specific order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the directive of the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant ordering the freezing or restriction of the Osun State Statutory Account No. 2017170947, maintained with the 3rd Defendant, vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and authored by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), without any prior or concurrent court order sought, obtained and served on the third Defendant, does not constitute an egregious act of executive lawlessness, an unlawful resort to self-help, a flagrant abuse of statutory powers, an unlawful suppression of the constitutional powers and functions of the Plaintiffs, a threat to the constitutional and corporate existence of Osun State, a brazen and unlawful denial of the democratic rights and dividends of the people of Osun State, and a direct violation of the fundamental constitutional principles of due process, the rule of law, and the financial autonomy of a federating unit.
“Whether in view of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the third Defendant as banker to the Government of Osun State in respect of the said statutory account can lawfully freeze or continue to freeze, restrict, block or deny the Government of Osun State unrestricted access to the said account merely upon an administrative directive, letter, request, instruction or communication from the first and/or second Defendants in the manner done herein, in the absence of a valid, subsisting and specific order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
“Whether this Honourable Court ought not to forthwith set aside the directive given by the first Defendant to the third Defendant in a letter dated 5th August, 2026 directing the freezing, restriction, blocking or placing of a post-no-debit instruction on the Osun State Statutory Account with the third Defendant, having regard to the effect of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, and in the absence of an Order of Court of competent jurisdiction, considering that such action was allegedly taken in violation of due process, and in a manner demonstrably capable of crippling the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Government to the people of Osun State.”
Also: “Whether having regard to the effect of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004 and in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction the 3rd Defendant did not breach the duty of care owed to the Osun State Government when on the purported directive of the first and second Defendants placed restriction on the Osun State Statutory Account with the third Defendant considering that such action was allegedly taken without a court order in violation of due process and in a manner demonstrably capable of crippling the constitutional and statutory obligations and rights of the Government and people of Osun State.”
Having identified the problems, the plaintiffs, inter alia, sought the court to declare the conduct taken by the defendants in relation to the Osun State account as “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires their powers, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”
They also sought “An order setting aside, vacating and nullifying the freezing, restriction, blocking, post-no-debit instruction or any other restraint placed on the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the 3rd Defendant vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and signed by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), as being unlawful, unconstitutional and without legal basis.
“An order directing the third Defendant to forthwith unfreeze, unblock and remove all restrictions and give the Government of Osun State immediate and unhindered access to and operation of the said Osun State Statutory Account.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants their officers, agents, servants, privies or any person acting on their behalf from freezing, restricting, blocking, putting a post no-debit instruction or otherwise interfering with the Osun State Statutory Account or any other account of the Government of Osun State without following due process of law.
“ An order of perpetual injunction restraining or prohibiting the 3rd Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, privies or any person acting on its behalf from acting on any directive, letter, instruction or request from the first and/or second Defendants to freeze, restrict, block or deny access to the Osun State Statutory Account save as provided by law.”
They also urged the court to award ₦2 billion against the defendants to serve as “exemplary and aggravated damages for the unlawful interference with public funds” and an order directing the defendants to pay the cost of the action.
However, no date has been established for the petition which was filed shortly after President Bola Tinubu urged the EFCC to promptly approach the court to unfreeze the Osun State Federal Statutory Allocation Account.
The EFCC had on Wednesday acknowledged freezing the state government’s bank account, claiming the step was to prevent the alleged movement of public funds under investigation and not tied to the impending election.
Since March, 2026, the agency said it had been busy investigating the Osun State Government “for alleged fraudulent handling of Ecology Funds, Intervention Funds and Federal Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) account to the tune of ₦11,000,000,000 only”.
Adeleke, however, said the move was unlawful.
In the midst of the scandal, President Bola Tinubu ordered the EFCC to rescind a court decision blocking an account belonging to the state government.
Tinubu, in a statement he personally made yesterday, said he was “deeply embarrassed not by the exercise of the mandate of the EFCC backed by a court order but by the timing of the action of the agency.”
About the Author
