Osun State counsel: EFCC account restriction requires court order
Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- A Nigerian state counsel argues that the EFCC illegally restricted access to Osun State's statutory allocation account without a proper court order.
- The counsel stated that the law requires a court order to be served on the bank involved before such restrictions can take effect.
- The EFCC's actions are being contested, with claims that the account only receives federal allocations and is not linked to money laundering.
Osun State Government's counsel, Prof. Mubarak Adekilekun, asserted that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) acted unlawfully by restricting access to the state's statutory allocation account. Adekilekun argued on Channels Television that neither the state government nor First Bank, where the account is held, received a valid court order accompanying the directive. He emphasized that Nigerian law mandates the proper service of a court order, particularly on the involved bank, before any such restriction can be legally imposed.
You will recall that after the letter was written to First Bank in Osun, which in turn transmitted the letter to the state government, the requirement of the law in this regard is that a court order must be issued and served on, especially, First Bank.
Adekilekun explained that the EFCC had initially sent a letter to First Bank, which was then forwarded to the Osun State Government. However, the bank confirmed that no court order was attached to this correspondence. While acknowledging the EFCC's statutory powers to investigate suspected financial crimes, Adekilekun stressed that these powers must be exercised in conjunction with the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act. He specifically cited Section 7 of the Act, which requires a court order to be served on the party concerned.
The letter was forwarded to Osun State Government, where First Bank confirmed that no court order was attached to it.
The counsel dismissed the EFCC's justification that the account might be compromised, stating that the account's sole purpose is to receive allocations from the Federation Account, which he described as a "pure federal domain." He refuted the notion that the EFCC could unilaterally place a Post No Debit (PND) on a state government account using its chairman's authority without judicial authorization. Adekilekun insisted that judicial approval must precede any such action, even for a temporary 72-hour restriction.
Yes, we agree there are some provisions of the law that say EFCC can, but if you interpret this in conjunction with Section 7 of the MLA, it says that there must be a court order served on that party.
Originally published by Vanguard in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.