EFCC Failed To Serve Court Order On First Bank, State Govt — Lawyer Alleges

Counsel to the Osun State Government, Professor Mubarak Adekilekun (SAN), has challenged the restriction placed on the state’s statutory allocation account, arguing that neither the state government nor First Bank was served with a court order authorising the action.

Adekilekun made the submission on Friday while appearing on Channels Television’s Politics Today, where he addressed the controversy surrounding the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) directive restricting access to the account.

The senior lawyer maintained that the law requires a valid court order to be obtained and served, particularly on the financial institution holding the account, before such a restriction can lawfully be imposed.

“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,” he said.

According to him, First Bank subsequently forwarded the letter to the Osun State Government while confirming that no court order was attached.

Adekilekun acknowledged that the EFCC has statutory powers to intervene where financial crimes are suspected, but argued that such powers must be exercised within the framework of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.

He rejected the suggestion that the EFCC Chairman could rely solely on the commission’s general powers to impose a Post-No-Debit (PND) restriction on the state government’s statutory account.

“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, ‘We are using our power vested in the Chairman of EFCC to now put a PND on the State Government’s statutory account,’” he stated.

Asked whether the EFCC could impose a temporary restriction on the account for up to 72 hours before obtaining judicial approval, Adekilekun disagreed.

“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 a court order must be served. It is there,” he said.

The SAN stressed that strict compliance with the law was particularly important because of the nature of the account and the potential consequences of restricting a state government’s access to public funds.

Lawyer Dismisses Money Laundering Allegation

Adekilekun also rejected suggestions that the account was being used for money laundering, arguing that the funds entering the account were statutory allocations distributed through the Federation Account.

He said the nature of the account made the EFCC’s action even more significant, stressing that authorities could not simply impose a PND restriction through a letter without following the required legal process.

“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 added.