Our attention has just been drawn to the press statement issued this afternoon by the Presidency directing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to immediately unfreeze the accounts of the Osun State Government. We welcome that directive because it restores, albeit belatedly, the constitutional and financial autonomy of a federating State and helps to ease the palpable tension generated by the EFCC’s action.

However, while the directive itself is commendable, the explanation offered by the Presidency is deeply troubling. Rather than settling the controversy, it raises even more fundamental questions about the legality of the EFCC’s conduct.

The Presidency asserts that the EFCC had obtained a court order on 5 August 2026 authorising the freezing of the Osun State Government’s accounts. If that assertion is true, then the obvious question is: Where is the court order?

Neither the freezing directive issued by the EFCC to the banks nor the Commission’s detailed press statement explaining and defending its actions made any reference whatsoever to a court order. At no point did the Commission identify the court that allegedly granted the order, disclose the suit number, state the date the order was made, or exhibit the order itself. Such information would ordinarily be the first line of defence for any law enforcement agency acting pursuant to judicial authority.

The complete absence of any reference to a court order in all the documents issued by the EFCC makes the Presidency’s subsequent claim both surprising and difficult to reconcile with the facts already in the public domain.

It is therefore legitimate to ask whether the alleged court order truly exists or whether it is being introduced after the fact to retrospectively legitimise an action that was, from every available indication, taken without judicial authorisation. If it is the latter, then such an attempt would be both egregious and disingenuous. It would amount to an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of Nigerians by creating the false impression that the EFCC acted within the bounds of the law when the available evidence suggests otherwise.

The issue has never been merely the timing of the freezing order. The real issue is legality. If no court order existed before the accounts were frozen, then the EFCC acted without lawful authority, outside the limits of its enabling statute, and in violation of the constitutional principles of federalism, due process and the rule of law. Such an unprecedented administrative action against the accounts of a State Government would amount to a grave constitutional overreach.

On the other hand, if the Presidency maintains that a court order was indeed obtained on 5 August 2026, then transparency demands that it be published immediately. Nigerians deserve to know the court that granted the order, the suit number, the judge who made it, and the legal basis upon which the accounts of a constitutionally recognised State Government were frozen.

Anything short of producing that order will only reinforce the growing suspicion that the alleged judicial authorisation is an afterthought, conceived merely to provide legal cover for an action that could not otherwise be defended.

Indeed, the loudest proof of complicity would be for the Presidency to allow this matter to end without holding the EFCC accountable if no such court order exists. Constitutional democracy cannot thrive where citizens are expected to accept official assertions on faith while the very judicial order relied upon is withheld from public scrutiny.

The challenge before the Presidency is therefore simple and straightforward: Produce the alleged court order. If none exists, then it should demonstrate the humility and candour expected of a constitutional government by acknowledging that the EFCC exceeded its constitutional and statutory powers, apologising to the Government and people of Osun State, and taking concrete measures to ensure that no federal agency is ever again permitted to embark upon such a brazen constitutional overreach.

If the alleged court order cannot be produced, this controversy will no longer be about the Osun governorship election alone. It will become a defining test of the Federal Government’s commitment to constitutionalism, transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.

Alex Ter Adum, PhD

DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE