Some Nigerians commit the delusional sin of believing that once a state institution has the word “independent” prefixed to its name, it is, indeed, independent. They believe that critical state agencies created by statute or the Constitution to ensure security and law and order, to guarantee justice and rule of law, to safeguard electoral integrity and democratic norms and to fight corruption and malfeasance in public office do, in fact, discharge their responsibilities dutifully without fear and without favour, deliberately removed from presidential control. Now, however, everyone knows what has long been clear, thanks to President Bola Tinubu who recently shredded the deceptive façade into pieces. That’s how to interpret the president’s recent “directive” to the anti-graft agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to lift a freezing order it placed on the Osun State Government’s statutory allocation account over alleged diversion of public funds.
Perversely, some commentators praised the president for his “shrewd” intervention. Few considered the bigger picture; few saw the wider implication of a president inviting the country to accept he could and, indeed, would interfere in any state agency because “as the president, the buck stops with me”; few understood that wielding power in that manner comes straight from an autocrat’s playbook. Tell me, what could be more corrosive of institutional independence than subjecting every agency to the whims of the president? The answer was less obvious from those who gave Tinubu a thumbs up for his action. I disagree! Why? Well, let’s start with the facts. Last week, on August 5, the EFCC asked First Bank to freeze the Osun State Government’s statutory allocation account, explaining later that “we observed in the past one week that activities on that account looked suspicious, so we took the step of placing a restriction on the account to preserve it.” Given that the EFCC’s action came just over a week to the state’s governorship election, on August 15, it inevitably created perception of the agency acting on a partisan direction to favour the federal ruling party’s candidate, who was the governor’s main opponent. Governor Ademola Adeleke immediately sued the EFCC, accusing the agency of acting “unlawfully”. Ostensibly, one could argue, the EFCC acted as it felt it should, and the governor behaved as he should, swiftly taking the matter to court: the law must then take its course.
To be sure, in a presidential system, the executive power is vested in the president, as stated in section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution, and, as such, an executive agency cannot be so independent as to be free of presidential control. However, the US Supreme Court made a powerful distinction between “executive” and “non-executive” agencies. The court held that executive or political agencies are those exercising executive powers or functions directly on behalf of the president; most agencies in Nigeria, such as the National Sports Commission, fall into this category. However, non-executive agencies are those whose duties are “neither political nor executive but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” The EFCC and the CBN fall into the non-executive category, and the convention worldwide is that such agencies should be insulated from presidential control and operate at a distance from partisan politics. Which was why, recently, the US Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s decision to fire Lisa Cook, a member of Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The court argued that allowing Trump to sack Cook at will would violate “our Nation’s long tradition of independent central banking protected from political interference.”
Unfortunately, in giving orders to EFCC, President Tinubu implies he doesn’t believe the anti-graft agency should be insulated from presidential control. Of course, past presidents used EFCC as a political tool, but they acted subtly. Tinubu’s blatantly “directive” to the EFCC replaces behind-the-scenes interference with open erosion of institutional independence and integrity. Put simply, President Tinubu is saying: “EFCC is under my control, I can tell it what to do.” But that strips the agency of the moral clout and legitimacy to act as a truly independent anti-graft body because EFCC’s credibility lies not only in the fact of independence but also in the appearance of independence.
Last year, in a piece titled “EFCC’s failure: Olukoyede’s blame-shifting is mere shadow boxing” (Vanguard, February 13, 2025), I questioned the agency’s independence. In a rejoinder titled “Olukoyede’s record-breaking strides in EFCC and Olu Fasan’s errors of analysis”, published in virtually all national newspapers, Dele Oyewale, EFCC’s head of media and publicity, accused me of “mud splashing”. Well, if I ever needed vindication, President Tinubu’s action has now provided it: EFCC is not truly independent!
