The President’s Signature—and the Questions It Raises
Did anyone notice that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu personally signed the statement directing the EFCC to return to court and vacate the order freezing the accounts of the Osun State Government?
That is highly unusual. Presidential statements are ordinarily issued through designated aides. The President’s decision to sign this one himself must therefore have been deliberate. Was it intended to underscore the gravity of the matter and leave no room for ambiguity? Was it a way of taking personal responsibility for correcting an action he described as “deeply embarrassing”? Or does it suggest that, on an issue this sensitive, he no longer trusted the normal channels of presidential communication to convey his position accurately?
The statement resolves one immediate problem, but it raises several more troubling questions.
Who initiated the action against the Osun State Government? Who authorised the EFCC to seek such a sweeping order only days before a governorship election? Was the political implication of freezing a state government’s accounts—especially an account reportedly used for salaries—considered at all?
The President stated that he had no prior knowledge of the action and had not yet been fully apprised of the facts. How could a federal agency take a step with such grave political, economic and democratic consequences without anticipating the damage it could do to the credibility of both the Federal Government and the electoral process?
Was this merely an error of judgement by the EFCC? Was it the work of overzealous officials seeking to please perceived political interests? Was it recommended by people who failed to appreciate its consequences? Or, more disturbingly, was it the handiwork of fifth columnists determined to embarrass the President and portray his administration as willing to deploy state institutions against political opponents?
There is also a deeper institutional question. If the EFCC acted independently and obtained a court order, what procedures will now be followed in reversing it? The President has directed the commission to return to court, as it properly must. But this episode highlights the delicate boundary between the operational independence of law-enforcement agencies and the President’s responsibility to prevent those agencies from undermining democratic confidence.
The timing was particularly damaging. An anti-corruption investigation may be legitimate, but when enforcement action is taken only days before an election, its timing becomes inseparable from its political consequences. Justice must not only be done; state institutions must not be allowed to appear as weapons in an electoral contest.
Whatever the full story, the President deserves credit for recognising the danger and intervening quickly. But reversing the order should not end the matter. Nigerians deserve to know how such a damaging decision was conceived, who authorised it, what safeguards failed and what measures will prevent a recurrence.
The correction is welcome. Accountability must follow. Otherwise, the same machinery may be deployed again—perhaps at a time when no one is willing or able to stop it.
- Babafemi Ojudu