The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and Transparency International Nigeria have backed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over its decision to restrict some accounts belonging to the Osun State Government.
The organisations said safeguarding public funds should take priority where there are credible concerns that money meant for public services could be diverted or misused.
CISLAC Executive Director and Head of Transparency International Nigeria, Auwal Rafsanjani, said the controversy over the EFCC’s action had failed to address a fundamental question: who should protect the people’s money when concerns are raised about its possible misuse?
In a statement, CISLAC stressed that public funds belonged to citizens rather than governors, political parties or individual administrations.
It said resources used to pay salaries and pensions and fund healthcare, roads, schools and other public services must be protected and kept available for their intended purposes.
The organisation argued that once public money was transferred through questionable channels, recovering it could become difficult.
It consequently described the EFCC’s restriction of accounts as a preventive step designed to preserve funds and evidence while investigations were conducted.
“The intent is simple: pause first, audit second, prosecute third if necessary,” CISLAC said.
The group also rejected the argument that restricting state government accounts necessarily amounted to a shutdown of governance.
It questioned whether a temporary restriction to facilitate an investigation could be more damaging than the potential loss of billions of naira earmarked for public services.
“What paralyses governance more — a temporary audit, or the disappearance of billions meant for public good?” it asked.
CISLAC said allocations and other public revenues at federal, state and local government levels were intended to support government operations and services such as education, healthcare, security, infrastructure and citizens’ welfare.
It said the EFCC’s intervention should be considered within the commission’s statutory mandate to prevent economic and financial crimes and preserve assets that could be at risk during investigations.
The organisation cited previous EFCC interventions involving public funds in Edo, Benue and Kogi states as examples of similar action.
According to CISLAC, during the last governorship election in Edo State, the EFCC restricted state government accounts following petitions and intelligence reports alleging contract inflation and diversion of federal allocations.
It said the intervention helped preserve about N12 billion pending a forensic audit, with the objective of preventing the funds from being moved beyond investigators’ reach.
CISLAC also referred to an EFCC action in Kogi State in August 2021, when the commission secured a Federal High Court order restricting access to a salary bailout account containing more than N20 billion.
The organisation said the funds represented a loan intended to support salary payments and the running costs of the Kogi State Government.
It added that the EFCC had approached the Federal High Court in Lagos under Section 44(2) of the Constitution and Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act, arguing that the restriction was necessary to preserve the funds.
According to CISLAC, the court accepted the principle that the EFCC could take such preventive measures in the public interest.
The organisation said the same principle should apply to the situation in Osun, arguing that investigations should not be undermined by the rapid movement or dissipation of funds.
“You cannot investigate a moving target,” it said.
CISLAC urged the EFCC to respond quickly when credible petitions, intelligence reports or audit queries point to a risk of significant movement of public funds.
“A state account can be emptied in 24 hours. A court case can take five years,” the organisation said.
It argued that waiting for a criminal trial to conclude before taking preventive measures could result in little or no money being left to recover.
However, CISLAC said account restrictions should be subject to safeguards, including defined timelines and judicial oversight.
It proposed that restrictions should ordinarily remain in place for between 30 and 60 days, during which the EFCC should complete its preliminary investigation and seek further judicial orders where necessary.
The organisation also called on the EFCC to make clear that an account restriction did not amount to a declaration of guilt, but was a preventive measure taken as part of an investigation.
CISLAC commended EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede and his team for what it described as efforts to protect the Osun State treasury.
It said the debate should focus not on the political party controlling a government, but on whether public resources were being adequately protected.
“The treasury does not belong to you; it belongs to the people,” the organisation said.
CISLAC urged Nigerians to support efforts to combat corruption, protect public resources and strengthen democratic institutions.
