Systemic Campaign Funding Exploits Public Funds, But EFCC Is Not a "Super-State" to Freeze Government Accounts, Says Olumide-Fusika SAN
Appearing on Arise News, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika addressed the controversy surrounding the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) freezing the Osun State Government's accounts—and President Bola Tinubu’s subsequent directive ordering the agency to vacate the restriction.
While Olumide-Fusika acknowledged the undeniable reality that Nigerian politicians routinely channel public coffers into campaign financing, he firmly rejected the notion that the EFCC possesses the legal authority to freeze a sovereign state’s operational accounts, warning that law enforcement leaders who allow themselves to be used in political skirmishes will ultimately be abandoned by the politicians they attempt to serve.
Deep-Dive Analysis
Legal Limits of Anti-Graft Powers and the Reality of Campaign Finance
Olumide-Fusika evaluated the tension between preventing the theft of public money for electoral campaigns and preserving the constitutional autonomy of subnational governments.
1. Campaign Funding Realities and State Account Autonomy
- Public Funds as Campaign Engines: Olumide-Fusika noted that despite statutory spending caps, incumbent politicians across party lines systematically channel state resources into electioneering, creating an uneven playing field for opposition figures lacking access to government treasuries.
- The "Super-State" Fallacy: Rejecting the EFCC’s action, he argued that no anti-graft agency should function as an unchecked "super-state" capable of shutting down state operations. Freezing primary state accounts, such as salary accounts, inflicts collateral damage on civil servants and public welfare rather than targeting specific criminal offenders.
- Logic of Prevention vs. Enforcement: While acknowledging the EFCC's desire to act preemptively before funds are diverted, he argued that blanket account freezes setting precedent for election cycles could logically justify freezing federal or agency accounts during every election—an unworkable dynamic under Nigerian law.
"I do not personally believe that the EFCC is a super-state that has the right to go and freeze a state government account... If you say accounts are linked to corruption, freezing a state account is like freezing federal government accounts during elections. The account is not meant for that purpose."
2. Institutional Integrity, Political Selective Enforcement, and Loyalty
- The Problem of Selective Enforcement: Highlighting the perception of political bias, Olumide-Fusika pointed out that while opposition-led state accounts face swift enforcement, accounts in rival-governed states under similar election pressures remain untouched.
- Strengthening People, Not Just Laws: Rejecting the belief that endless statutory amendments solve electoral corruption, he stressed that the primary failure lies with the individuals running non-partisan institutions like the EFCC, DSS, and Police.
- A Warning to Heads of Security Agencies: He cautioned heads of security and law enforcement agencies to maintain strict fidelity to the Nigerian people rather than serving transitory political masters who will discard them when politically convenient.
"Politicians don't mind throwing you under the bus if it serves their interest... The only loyalty you can count on at the end of the day is that of the people. Institutions are there; it is the people running them that should behave."
Published by Qubes Magazine
Founder & Editor-in-Chief: Okwudili Onyido
Stay informed and ahead with breaking news, entertainment, and exclusive updates from Qubes Magazine—your trusted source for digital journalism.
Contact: info@qubesmagazine.com.ng
© 2026 Qubes Magazine. All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from the publisher.
Post a Comment