OsunDecides2026: Tinubu calls Adeleke, confirms EFCC directive to lift Osun account freeze,
President Bola Tinubu telephoned Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke on Thursday to inform him that he had directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to take steps to vacate the court order freezing a bank account operated by the state government.
Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga announced the conversation in a post on X. He stated that the President told the governor about the directive to lift the restriction on the Osun State Government account. The call came minutes after the presidency had publicly issued the same instruction.
The EFCC had confirmed on Wednesday that it froze the account over suspicion that it was being used for illegal activities. The Commission also linked the action to an ongoing investigation into the alleged diversion of about N11 billion in Ecology Funds, Intervention Funds and Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) allocations. The Osun State Government rejected the allegations, describing the freeze as politically motivated and insisting there was no legal basis for restricting a state government’s account.
The telephone conversation represents the first known direct communication between Tinubu and Adeleke since the controversy began. It forms part of the presidency’s effort to reassure the Osun government that the restriction would be removed before the 15 August governorship election.
Tinubu has maintained that he supports the operational independence of anti-corruption agencies. At the same time, he has argued that such an action so close to a state election risks creating the impression that federal institutions are being deployed to influence the electoral process. The personal call converts a formal institutional directive into a direct political assurance, acknowledging that public perception carries weight when voting is only days away.
The sequence—investigation, sudden freeze, presidential intervention, and personal reassurance—illustrates the recurring tension between the independence of anti-corruption bodies and the political requirement of electoral neutrality. Whether the court order is vacated in time, and whether the underlying investigation continues without further disruption, will determine if the episode is remembered as a defence of process or as a rapid correction driven by electoral sensitivity.
