The Osun account freeze saga continues, with the state counsel's latest statement adding a twist to the narrative. Prof. Mubarak Adekilekun (SAN) has revealed a crucial detail: no court order was served to the state government or First Bank, despite the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission's (EFCC) directive restricting access to the state's statutory allocation account.
This revelation raises questions about the legality of the EFCC's actions. Adekilekun argues that the law mandates a court order to be issued and served, especially to the bank, before any restriction can be imposed. He emphasizes that the EFCC's letter to the bank was transmitted to the state government, but the absence of a court order attached to it is significant.
The SAN's interpretation of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act is particularly intriguing. He suggests that the EFCC's powers must be read in conjunction with Section 7 of the Act, which explicitly states that a court order must be served. Adekilekun's stance implies that the EFCC cannot simply use its vested power to restrict an account without a court order, a detail that many might overlook.
This legal battle takes an interesting turn as human rights lawyer Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, disagrees. Falana claims that the EFCC acted within the law, citing a 2022 Court of Appeal judgment. He argues that the commission can freeze a state government account if it obtains a court order within the stipulated period. However, President Bola Tinubu's intervention adds another layer of complexity, directing the EFCC to vacate the order and discontinue the action.
The Osun State Government's next move remains uncertain. Adekilekun's statement suggests that the decision will be made by the state government, indicating a potential legal battle ahead. As the story unfolds, the absence of a court order served to the state government and First Bank becomes a pivotal point in this financial and legal drama, leaving readers eager for further developments.
