Former vice president Atiku Abubakar has accused President Bola Tinubu of undermining claims that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission operates independently of the presidency.
In a statement issued by his spokesman Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said Tinubu’s order directing the EFCC to vacate a court order freezing Osun State government accounts had “perhaps unwittingly, exposed the fiction of institutional independence under his administration.”
The opposition leader, who is the African Democratic Congress presidential candidate for 2027, noted that the EFCC’s own statement on the account freeze made no reference to any court order, yet the president’s intervention rested on the existence of one.
“President Tinubu cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that he neither knew of nor interferes in the operations of the EFCC and, in the very next breath, announce that he has directed the Commission to discontinue its action and return to court,” Atiku said.
“If the EFCC promptly complies with that directive, then Nigerians have before them undeniable proof that the Commission is not as operationally independent as the President wants the country to believe.”
He added that institutions “cannot be independent only when it is politically convenient and subject to presidential directives whenever controversy arises. That is not institutional autonomy; it is executive control disguised as independence.”
Atiku further challenged Tinubu to apply the same authority to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission by ordering the release of former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai.
“Having now demonstrated that he can issue direct operational directives to anti-corruption agencies whenever he considers it expedient, President Tinubu owes Nigerians an explanation as to why he cannot exercise the same authority in the case of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai,” he said.
The freezing of Osun State accounts occurred days before a governorship election in the opposition-controlled state. Atiku said reversing the action might limit damage to the electoral process but did not erase questions over why it was initiated at such a sensitive moment.
