Does the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission possess the statutory and constitutional power to freeze the accounts of a state government in Nigeria’s federation? The short answer is no. The longer answer is that the agency has tried it before, been told off by courts and governors alike, and still finds itself tempted by the same stunt whenever the political weather turns favourable.
Start with the law. Section 34 of the EFCC Act allows the Commission to approach a court for an order to freeze an account where money is reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of an offence. The language speaks of “a person.” Public funds sitting in a designated state government account are not the private property of any individual until they have been diverted into private pockets. The Money Laundering Act permits a 72-hour stop order. Beyond that, a proper court order is required. None of these provisions authorises a federal agency to switch off the salary and operational accounts of a federating unit and thereby halt the ordinary business of government.
The Constitution is even clearer. Sections 120 to 125 treat state funds as public funds under the control of the State House of Assembly and the State Auditor-General. Oversight belongs to the legislature of that state under Sections 128 and 129. A federal agency cannot simply seize the purse strings of a state without rupturing the federal bargain.
History has already tested this theory. In August 2018 the EFCC froze several Benue State government accounts while investigating alleged misuse of security votes under then Governor Samuel Ortom. The Nigerian Governors’ Forum, led at the time by Abdulaziz Yari, called the action unconstitutional and warned that freezing a state’s accounts amounted to shutting down government. Salaries and pensions were immediately affected. Public outcry forced a swift U-turn and the accounts were unfrozen. The episode remains a textbook illustration of what happens when an anti-graft agency confuses the state treasury with a private suspect’s bank balance.
Rivers State has its own chapter. In 2008 the EFCC froze certain Rivers government accounts at Zenith Bank in the course of investigations involving then Chief of Staff Nyesom Wike. Later, under Governor Wike himself, the state secured court orders restraining the EFCC from probing its finances on the ground that oversight of state funds belongs to the House of Assembly. The pattern is consistent: the Commission investigates, sometimes freezes, then retreats when the constitutional and practical consequences become too loud to ignore.
Even the dramatic attempts to arrest former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello underline the limits. Courts have repeatedly drawn lines around the agency’s reach, including interim orders that frustrated immediate arrest and highlighted the practical reality that a sitting or recently departed governor operates within a state security architecture that is not automatically at the disposal of a federal commission. The Supreme Court has affirmed the EFCC’s general power to investigate and prosecute economic crimes nationwide, yet it has never granted the agency a blank cheque to treat state treasuries as if they were personal accounts or to override the constitutional architecture of federalism at will.
Now comes the latest chapter, delivered on official letterhead. A letter from the EFCC, dated 6 August and addressed to the Managing Director of First Bank, Abuja, attention Chief Compliance Officer. Reference number CR.3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFI/TA/OSUN/VOL.17. Subject: RE INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES. The account named is “Osun State Government Statutory Allocation Acct,” number 2017170947. The Commission refers to an earlier letter of 15 April and then requests that the bank place a Post-No-Debit on it. The legal basis cited is Section 38(1) and (2) of the EFCC Act 2004 and Section 24 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Section 38 of the EFCC Act is not a freezing provision. It is the section that allows the Commission to seek and receive information from any person, authority, corporation or company without let or hindrance. It creates an offence for obstructing such requests. It does not say “you may instruct a bank to lock a state government’s statutory allocation account.”
Section 24 of the Money Laundering Act is about the power to demand and obtain records. Again, records. Not a unilateral Post-No-Debit order on the account that pays salaries.
The actual provisions that deal with temporary restrictions or freezes sit elsewhere. The well-known 72-hour stop order under the money-laundering framework, and the court-ordered freeze under Section 34 of the EFCC Act. Neither is cited in this letter. What we have instead is a direct administrative instruction to a bank to restrict a state’s statutory allocation account, dressed up as “investigation activities.”
A state statutory allocation account is not a private individual’s wallet. It is the institutional artery through which federal allocations and other public funds flow into the machinery of a federating unit. Placing a Post-No-Debit on it does not merely preserve evidence. It interrupts the ability of the state to meet its ordinary obligations. That is not a technical detail. It is the practical difference between probing alleged diversion of funds and temporarily disabling the government that is supposed to be running the state.
The timing, ten days before a governorship election, does not help the optics. Governor Adeleke had already raised the alarm. The letter then appears. The Commission has so far offered no public explanation of what specific offence under its Act is being investigated, nor why a state allocation account itself needed to be restricted rather than specific private accounts into which funds might have been diverted.
Investigation of diverted public funds is legitimate. Freezing the institutional accounts that keep a state running is not. The distinction is not technical pedantry. It is the difference between chasing stolen money and casually dismantling the ability of a state to pay salaries, service debts and keep the lights on. When the timing of such a move coincides with an election season, the legal debate becomes secondary to the political one, and the Constitution is left looking like an optional extra.
Nigeria is a federation. Federal agencies do not get to shut down state governments because they suspect something may have gone wrong with the books. Trail the money into private hands. Do not turn off the treasury. The courts, the governors’ forum and the plain language of the Constitution have already said as much. The only question left is how many more times the lesson must be repeated.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 