The Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has reacted to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s directive to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to vacate a court order freezing the Osun State Government’s account.
Atiku stated that Tinubu’s order has destroyed the long-standing claim that the anti-corruption agencies operate independently of the Presidency.
The former Vice-President stated this in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, on Thursday.
He challenged Tinubu to immediately direct the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to release the former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, if indeed he possesses the authority to issue operational directives to the EFCC.
He said, “President Tinubu’s statement has raised more questions than it has answered. While the EFCC’s official statement painstakingly explained why it froze the Osun State Government’s account, it made no mention whatsoever of obtaining a court order. Yet the President’s intervention is predicated entirely on the existence of such a court order, which he claims to have directed the EFCC to vacate.
“If indeed there was a court order, why did the EFCC omit such a fundamental fact from its official account? If there was none, then the President has introduced into the public discourse a legal process that exists nowhere in the EFCC’s own narrative. Nigerians deserve a coherent explanation instead of conflicting versions from the same government.” History
Atiku said the President had, perhaps unwittingly, exposed the fiction of institutional independence under his administration.
He said, “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. 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.
“One cannot preach institutional independence while exercising direct operational control over the same institution. 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.”
The former Vice President said the President’s intervention has created a constitutional and moral obligation that cannot be selectively applied.
El-Rufai’s Continued Detention
“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. If he can direct the EFCC to discontinue its action today, then he cannot pretend to be powerless over the actions of the ICPC tomorrow. Executive power cannot be invoked selectively for political convenience while institutional independence is cited only when it suits the Presidency,” he said. History
Atiku said the controversy goes far beyond Osun State or the detention of El-Rufai.
“The real casualty is the credibility of Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions and the rule of law itself. Nigerians deserve institutions that are genuinely independent, not institutions that are portrayed as independent until the Presidency decides otherwise.”
He said that while reversing the freezing of the Osun State Government’s account may avert further damage to the electoral process, it does not erase the disturbing fact that such an action was initiated in the first place.
“The unanswered questions remain: who authorised the freezing of the account of an opposition-controlled state just days before a governorship election, and why was such an extraordinary action taken at such a politically sensitive moment? Nigerians deserve answers. Democracy is not measured by the ability to reverse an injustice after public outrage; it is measured by the discipline to prevent such injustice from occurring in the first place,” he concluded.