Counsel to the Osun State Government, Prof. Mubarak Adekilekun (SAN), has argued that neither the state government nor First Bank was served with any court order accompanying the directive that restricted access to the state’s statutory allocation account.

Adekilekun made the claim on Friday during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today, while commenting on the controversy surrounding the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s action on the account.

According to him, the law requires that a court order be obtained and properly served, particularly on the bank involved, before such a restriction can take effect.

He explained that the EFCC initially wrote to First Bank, and the letter was later forwarded to the Osun State Government, but the bank indicated that no court order was attached to the correspondence.

“You will recall that after the letter was written to First Bank in Osun, which in turn transmitted the letter to the state government, the requirement of the law in this regard is that a court order must be issued and served on, especially, First Bank.

“The letter was forwarded to Osun State Government, where First Bank confirmed that no court order was attached to it,” Adekilekun said.

The senior advocate acknowledged that the EFCC possesses statutory powers to act in cases involving suspected financial crimes, but maintained that those powers must be interpreted together with the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.

“They were trying to justify their action that if they do not do it, the account could be compromised. Yes, we agree there are some provisions of the law that say EFCC can, but if you interpret this in conjunction with Section 7 of the MLA, it says that there must be a court order served on that party.

“You can’t just go in and say, ‘Er, we are using our power vested in the Chairman of EFCC to now put a PND on the State Government’s statutory account,’” he said.

When asked whether the commission could impose a restriction for up to 72 hours before obtaining a court order, Adekilekun rejected that interpretation and insisted that judicial authorisation must come first.

“See, in this regard, EFCC must get a court order. The laws are there. If you read the provision I’m talking about, Section 7 of the Money Laundering Act, it stipulates that court order must be served. It is there,” he insisted.

He also dismissed allegations that the account was linked to money laundering, stressing that it had only been used to receive allocations from the Federation Account.

“You can’t do an act of this magnitude and just say you are transmitting a letter to put a PND on a state government account. The only money that is being transferred to that account is from the Federation Account, pure federal domain. That’s one of the requirements,” he said.

His comments came shortly after human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, defended the EFCC’s action, saying the commission did not act unlawfully.

Falana argued that the EFCC has the authority to freeze a state government account, provided it secures a court order within the legally prescribed period.

He referred to a 2022 Court of Appeal decision involving the Benue State Government and the EFCC, which he said confirmed the commission’s power to place a Post No Debit restriction for a maximum of 72 hours before obtaining judicial approval.

Amid the dispute, President Bola Tinubu directed the EFCC to return to court to seek the vacation of the order and discontinue the action, citing concerns over the timing of the restriction ahead of the August 15 Osun governorship election.

Responding to a question on whether the Osun State Government would continue with its legal challenge despite the President’s intervention, Adekilekun said the next step would be determined by his client.

“Well, it depends on what my client thinks, which is the Osun State Government. If they give us the go-ahead, but I think and I believe that it should be tried,” he said.