President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to withdraw the court order freezing the Osun State Government’s bank account has sparked renewed debate over the independence of anti-corruption agencies in Nigeria.

The controversy followed the President’s instruction on Thursday that the EFCC return to court and vacate the freezing order. Tinubu said that although the commission acted within its legal powers, the timing of the action, coming days before the August 15 governorship election, was inappropriate.

The President said he was “deeply embarrassed” by the development, noting that actions taken by federal agencies are often attributed to his administration.

The EFCC had earlier defended the account freeze as a routine action and denied any political motive. Its Director of Public Affairs, Wilson Uwujaren, said the commission had the legal authority to restrict an account for up to 72 hours without a court order, citing a similar action involving Edo State ahead of its 2024 governorship election.

The President’s intervention has, however, triggered questions about whether the EFCC is truly independent of the executive.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, argued that the President does not have the legal authority to direct the EFCC or the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) in their operations. However, he said the President’s intervention could be considered understandable given concerns that the account freeze might be perceived as an attempt to influence the Osun election.

Maduabuchi criticised the manner in which the directive was issued, arguing that it should have been handled through the Attorney-General rather than through a public presidential directive.

He also questioned the decision to freeze the entire state account, saying the EFCC should instead focus on funds allegedly diverted to private companies.

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) also questioned the President’s reference to a court order authorising the account freeze. The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the EFCC had not previously mentioned obtaining such an order when defending its action.

Abdullahi questioned whether the President had been misinformed about the existence of the order or whether the facts had been misrepresented, describing either possibility as troubling.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar also criticised the account freeze, describing it as a threat to democracy. He argued that freezing a state government’s main operating account shortly before an election could disrupt salaries, essential services and governance.

Atiku further warned that the selective use of anti-corruption agencies could undermine public confidence and create the perception that state institutions were being used to influence political outcomes.

He also challenged Tinubu to apply the same authority to the ICPC over the detention of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai.

According to Atiku, the President’s intervention in the Osun matter raises questions about the extent of executive influence over anti-corruption agencies and whether their independence is genuine.

The controversy has therefore renewed broader concerns about the relationship between the presidency, anti-corruption agencies and the rule of law, particularly when their actions have potential political implications.