Connect with us

News

NBA faults EFCC as Osun account freeze sparks row

Published

on

The Nigerian Bar Association has faulted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over the reported freezing of Osun State Government bank account, saying the anti-graft agency lacks the constitutional power to impose a blanket restriction on a state’s finances without due legal process.

The EFCC on Wednesday directed that no money be withdrawn from the Osun State Government’s statutory allocation account as part of an ongoing investigation.

A letter dated August 5, 2026, and signed by the Assistant Commander of the EFCC, Adenike Babalola, for the Director of Investigation, instructed the bank to place a post-no-debit restriction on the account pending the conclusion of the probe.

The letter, referenced 3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666, was addressed to the Managing Director of First Bank, with attention to the Chief Compliance Officer.

It identified the affected account as “Osun State Government Statutory Allocation” with account number 2017170947.

The EFCC in a statement on Wednesday night said the action followed suspicious movement of funds amid an ongoing investigation into alleged fraudulent handling of about N11billion in Ecology Funds, Intervention Funds and Federal Account Allocation Committee allocations.

In a statement on Wednesday signed by its Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale, the anti-graft agency said it was “compelled to publicly address issues pertaining to its preventive moves in freezing the bank account of the Osun State government, without prejudice to the imminent governorship election in the state.”

The commission said it had been investigating the state government since March 2026 over the alleged mismanagement of the funds, disclosing that some officials, particularly the state’s Accountant-General, had been interviewed by its investigators.

According to the statement, the decision to place a Post No Debit order on the account was triggered by unusual fund movements detected from August 2, 2026.

“These ongoing investigations of the state government would not have warranted any placement of Post No Debit order on its account but for the precipitate and unwarranted movement of funds from the accounts to different suspicious accounts since August 2, 2026.

“The Commission noticed huge transfers of funds into different corporate entities and had to swiftly halt the trend by freezing the accounts from which such heavy funds are being moved,”it said.

The EFCC insisted its action was not politically motivated despite the timing ahead of the Osun governorship election, stressing that it could not overlook financial infractions on account of the poll.

“While the commission is fully aware of the impending governorship election in Osun State, it has a responsibility to act in defence of the sanctity of the funds of the state. It will be uncharitable for the Commission to allow an excuse of an upcoming election to fold its arms to perform its legally-assigned functions.”

The commission further disclosed that Osun was not the only state under its watch, noting that several other states remained under investigation.

“The commission has always pointed out that it is non-partisan and non-sectarian but always working in the overall interests of Nigerians,” it said.

It urged the public to disregard claims that the action was politically motivated, stating, “The public is enjoined to ignore false narratives and deliberate demonization of the works of the EFCC. The interests of all Nigerians are greater and will always be protected by the commission.”

NBA kick

However, NBA president, Afam Osigwe (SAN), in an interview with The PUNCH on Wednesday, warned that any directive restricting withdrawals from accounts belonging to a state government would effectively cripple governance and amount to an abuse of power.

His comments followed the EFCC’s directive to First Bank to place a post-no-debit restriction on Osun State’s statutory allocation account as part of an ongoing investigation, a move that has generated legal and political controversy ahead of the August 15 governorship election in the state.

Osigwe acknowledged that the EFCC could seek court orders against specific accounts suspected to be linked to fraud but insisted that the commission could not lawfully freeze all accounts belonging to a state government.

He said, “No government agency or any person has the right or the power to restrict withdrawals from the account of any state because, first of all, the order has the effect of grounding the activities of a government. If the EFCC knows that any particular account is being used for the purpose of fraud, it may be able to obtain a court order, but it cannot make a blanket order freezing the accounts of any state.”

The senior advocate added, “Such an order would be unconstitutional and also violate the powers of the EFCC and may actually amount to an abuse of power. We should not have such a situation.”

He maintained that any decision to freeze the account of an individual or government institution must be supported by sufficient legal grounds and a valid court order.

According to him, “If there is a need to freeze the account of a person or government, there is a need to provide a proper basis for it and get a proper order.”

Although he said he was unaware whether the EFCC had indeed issued such a directive, Osigwe advised banks not to comply with any instruction seeking to halt transactions across all state government accounts.

He stated, “I don’t think it would be proper if indeed the EFCC made such an order. I’m not aware of it, but if they made such an order, I would advise that no bank should obey such an order.”

He further urged the anti-graft agency to avoid actions capable of creating the impression that it intended to financially cripple a state government.

Similarly, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, questioned the legality of the alleged no-debit restriction, and also insisted that the EFCC must first obtain a court order before freezing any account.

See also  Ex-minister, Audu Ogbeh is dead

He said Nigerian courts had consistently ruled that anti-graft agencies could not freeze accounts without judicial authorisation.

“There is a no-debit order on Osun State’s account. My question is: Does the EFCC have the power to do that? I don’t think they got any order from the court,” he said.

Olumide-Fusika noted that while the EFCC regularly imposed restrictions on individual accounts, the alleged action against a state government had attracted wider public attention because of its constitutional implications.

He said, “The courts have been consistent on that: don’t do it without a court order. Anybody can go to court to seek an order, but the decision belongs to the court.”

The senior lawyer, however, linked the controversy to the forthcoming Osun governorship election, arguing that concerns over the possible use of public funds for electioneering could have informed the alleged restriction.

He nonetheless maintained that any preventive action must comply with the law.

Also weighing in, Isiaka Olagunju (SAN) described the freezing of the bank account as a serious violation of the 1999 Constitution and contrary to the principles of federalism.

He said, “The EFCC’s action is a serious infraction of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. If at all there is an allegation of embezzlement against any official of a state, the EFCC needs to be specific instead of obtaining a blanket order freezing the funds of the state.”

According to him, restricting access to state funds could adversely affect governance and undermine the government’s ability to discharge its constitutional responsibilities.

However, Professor Damilola Olawuyi (SAN) defended the use of account freezing as a recognised preventive tool in tackling economic and financial crimes, provided it is exercised within the limits of the law.

He said, “The EFCC has inherent statutory powers to take anticipatory measures to prevent and eradicate the commission of economic and financial crimes.”

Olawuyi explained that temporary restrictions on accounts had become an internationally recognised mechanism for disrupting illicit financial flows, money laundering and terrorist financing.

He, however, cautioned that such powers “should not be used as a cudgel to settle political scores, neither should they be used as a substitute for proper investigations or a tool to block legitimate transactions.”

Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Wolemi Esan, said the EFCC could place a temporary stop order on a suspected account for up to 72 hours without first obtaining a court order under Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.

He explained that any restriction beyond the statutory period must be backed by judicial authorisation.

“If the directive was intended to operate as a stop order for a period not exceeding 72 hours under Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering Act, a prior court order was not required. However, if the EFCC intended the restriction to continue beyond the statutory 72-hour period, it ought to obtain an interim freezing order under Section 34 of the EFCC Act,” Esan said.

Also commenting, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN) said he was unaware of any legal provision empowering the Federal Government or the EFCC to freeze a state’s account.

“I don’t think there’s such an authority. I don’t know on what grounds they did it. Let us go to court and see what the court says. If they don’t have that power, then people will naturally describe it as harassment,” he said.

CSOs kick

Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, urged the Osun State Government to seek judicial redress if it believed the restriction was unlawful.

He said, “If the state government has any valid reason, it can use legal means to seek the reopening of its account.”

The Chairman of the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership, Debo Adeniran, said the EFCC would be justified if it had reasonable suspicion that public funds were being misapplied, but stressed that the commission must demonstrate that its action was evidence-driven rather than politically motivated.

“If it is merely for political considerations, then it will not be justifiable. The commission doesn’t have the right to stop government activities just because of politics,”Adeniran said.

A civil society organisation, Peering Advocacy and Advancement Center in Africa, said it may be irresponsible for an anti graft agency like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to freeze Osun government’s accounts without valid reason.

The Executive Director of the Centre, Ezenwa Nwagwu, disclosed this on Wednesday while speaking with The PUNCH on the alleged restriction of Osun State Government’s accounts by EFCC.

Nwagwu, who also said fact regarding the matter was not immediately available to him, added that there must be some conditions that necessitated the restriction.

“In this period of political campaigns and tantrums, it is important that we don’t allow politicians to give us talking points. What may be necessary will be for the media and for interested parties to give the public the true picture of the events, not from the side of the politicians. I cannot really imagine that the EFCC will, because of political purposes, go and freeze state government accounts.

“It doesn’t look plausible to me. I do not have the facts from the EFCC. There must be some conditions that necessitated that action.

The fact that an election is coming does not mean that the EFCC will not do its work. I think (Ola) Olukayode, the boss of EFCC, will be completely irresponsible to get involved in politics or align an institution like the EFCC to serve the interests of anybody. That does not look possible to me.”

Opposition knocks EFCC

Meanwhile, opposition parties, including the African Democratic Congress, Labour Party, Nigeria Democratic Congress, Social Democratic Party and the Young Progressives Party, condemned the reported freezing of the Osun State account, accusing the Federal Government of using federal institutions to gain political advantage ahead of the August 15 governorship election.

See also  Protesting teachers in Mexico topple player statues days before World Cup

The ruling All Progressives Congress, however, backed the EFCC’s action, insisting that anti-corruption agencies should be allowed to carry out lawful investigations without political interference.

The ADC, in a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, described the development as “political terrorism,” alleging that it formed part of a broader strategy to weaken the Osun State Government before the governorship poll.

According to the party, withholding a state’s fund was not merely an administrative or legal matter but a deliberate political tactic aimed at undermining the opposition.

“This is not an administrative decision or a legal dispute. It is political terrorism by the Bola Tinubu-led APC government carried out with the instruments of the Nigerian state in order to achieve the singular objective of undermining the state government ahead of the coming governorship election in the state,” the statement read in part.

The ADC argued that the consequences of the action would be borne by ordinary residents, saying the freezing of funds could affect workers’ salaries, primary healthcare services, education, rural infrastructure and other critical public services.

It further accused the Federal Government of treating political competition as warfare, insisting that democratic contests should not come at the expense of citizens’ welfare.

“Political opponents are not enemy combatants. Opposition-controlled states are not occupied territories. Public institutions do not belong to whichever party temporarily controls the federal government,” the party stated.

The opposition party also alleged a sustained campaign to destabilise Osun State through what it described as the continued occupation of local government councils by unelected APC loyalists, the arrest of opposition figures and the alleged use of armed political thugs operating with the protection of security agencies.

According to the ADC, taken together, the developments point to “the deliberate promotion of a state of anarchy by federal authorities and agencies whose constitutional duty is to preserve law, order and democratic stability.”

The party called for the immediate restoration of all statutory allocations due to the state’s local governments, an end to what it termed federal intimidation and the restoration of constitutional order.

Similarly, the Young Progressives Party condemned the reported freezing of the accounts, describing it as an abuse of state institutions capable of undermining democratic governance.

In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Wale Egbeola-Martins, the party said the timing of the action had fuelled concerns that the forthcoming governorship election was being turned into a political contest in which federal institutions were being used against perceived opponents.

“This development is deeply troubling and should be condemned by all lovers of democracy. Freezing the accounts of the Osun State Government at this critical period is an excessive action that raises serious concerns about the abuse of state institutions for political purposes,” the statement read.

The YPP warned that withholding public funds could delay the delivery of essential services and unfairly punish innocent citizens rather than any individual or institution.

“The timing of this action inevitably creates the impression that the Federal Government is turning the forthcoming election into a do-or-die affair. Democracy thrives on fairness, due process and a level playing field, not actions that could be perceived as intimidating or weakening political opponents through state institutions,” the party added.

It urged residents of Osun State to remain vigilant and defend the integrity of the democratic process, insisting that political power must be won through the ballot box rather than through actions capable of eroding public confidence in democratic institutions.

Reacting, the National Publicity Secretary of the NDC, Osa Director, said, “What I can say is that what the APC government has done is a brazen display of executive rascality and irresponsibility. It has never happened in the history of Nigeria that we have this kind of undemocratic practices where a federal agency will be muscling the opposition without any iota of pretense and decency.

“So, the approach Osun State Government is taking now is in the right direction. As I said before, the judiciary is the last hope of the common man. And the survival of democracy in this country rests solely on the judiciary and, to an extent, understands the media.

“So, I hope the judiciary will give this matter an accelerated hearing so that the account can be unfroze. It’s the subnational that has the right of existence and independence under the Nigerian constitution. So the EFCC has no power whatsoever to freeze the account of the state, especially during an election period. It’s very disappointing and disgraceful.

“I don’t know the impression they are conjuring before the international community. If it can be so brazen in the way and manner to muzzle opposition, I think every responsible and right thinking Nigerian should rise and speak out against this condemnable act.”

Asked about calls for the resignation of the EFCC chairman, Ola Olukoyede, Director said the commission’s chairman should reverse the action or quit office.

He said, “Yes, if he assists his alliance himself. I must confess that on a personal note, I have loved some of his actions before now because he’s not really a media person. Other EFCC chairmen would have done their work on the pages of newspapers and the media, really.

“But he has been a bit reserved. But now that he has done this, I think it’s only important for him to reverse himself immediately. Otherwise, he should be kicked out of that place.”

Similarly, the National Publicity Secretary of the SDP, Rufus Aiyenigba, said the unfolding events in Osun posed a threat to democracy and national stability, urging all parties to exercise restraint.

See also  Kano paid N32bn gratuity, death benefits in three years

He said, “Everything that is happening in Osun right now is a threat to our democracy and national stability. On both sides, there needs to be a sense of decency and commitment to peace and national stability. Election is not a war.

“Deploying state authority to oppress, suppress and intimidate is criminal. This is anti-democracy and executive rascality. Also, on the part of the state government, there is a need to ensure the rule of law, transparency and be seen above the board.

“Elections should not be a reason to plunge a state into social tension and anarchy. If you are popular, you win. If you are not popular, you lose. And life goes on. There will be Osun after the election and there will be Nigeria after 2027.”

On demands for Olukoyede’s resignation, Aiyenigba said Nigerians had the right to hold public office holders accountable.

He said, “Let Nigerians continue to demand for accountability and responsibility on the part of office holders. Anyone who is seen to be underwhelming in terms of conduct and in terms of mandate delivery, it is within the rights of Nigerians to ask for interrogation and possibly call for the removal of such public officers.

“Every public office is a trust and every public office holder should see it from that perspective. We must not disappoint Nigerians and undermine the public good in the name of serving the interests of one principal or the other.

“We are to serve Nigeria, defend the constitution and work for the true interests of the country, including the EFCC and INEC chairmen, party leaders, president, governors and others. As I said, every public office is a trust that we must all respect and work to defend, not to undermine.”

The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Ken Asogwa, however, adopted a more measured position, acknowledging the statutory powers of the EFCC while insisting that every action taken by the commission must comply with constitutional provisions and due process.

He said, “The Labour Party acknowledges the statutory powers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to investigate allegations of financial crimes involving any individual or institution. However, LP urges all parties involved to exercise restraint and act strictly within the confines of the Constitution and the rule of law.

“If, as alleged by the Osun government, the state’s accounts were frozen without a valid court order, then the EFCC must appreciate that Nigeria is a nation governed by laws, where every exercise of governmental power must be backed by due process.

“Considering that the state governorship election is only days away, some may be tempted to view the development through the prism of political persecution.

“Nevertheless, if the EFCC possesses credible evidence of financial infractions by the state government, no one can legitimately dictate to the Commission when it should discharge its statutory responsibilities. The party therefore encourages the Osun State government, as it has already indicated it intends to do, to seek judicial redress.

“The courts remain the constitutionally recognised forum for the determination of disputes, and history has shown that the Nigerian judiciary has consistently risen to the occasion in defence of justice and the rule of law, even in the most challenging of times.”

APC backs EFCC

The ruling All Progressives Congress, however, threw its weight behind the action of the anti-corruption agency, stating that it must have acted based on facts that are not readily available to the public.

Speaking exclusively to The PUNCH, APC Director of Publicity, Bala Ibrahim, noted that the EFCC was set up to investigate financial crimes.

“For it to freeze the account of a government, it might have its reasons. If what it did is within the powers of the commission, I don’t think anyone should question it. I don’t have all the facts before me now, but I believe the commission would not act outside the law. They must have their reasons,” he said.

He urged the public to remember that the accounts so frozen belong to the state government and not governor Adeleke.

“It’s one thing to freeze the account of a government, and it’s another thing to freeze the account of a governor who enjoys constitutional immunity,” he added.

Osun vs EFCC

Osun State’s Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Oluwole Jimi-Bada on Wednesday, said he had the mandate of the governor to sue the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission after the anti- graft agency froze government accounts.

Jimi-Bada said a ‘Post no debit’ letter from the EFCC was forwarded to the management of  First Bank where Osun government accounts were domiciled on Wednesday.

The commissioner, who expressed readiness to proceed to court, said the move by the anti-graft agency may hamper government’s business, noted that Governor Ademola Adeleke was not using state funds to run its campaign for reelection.

“I have the mandate of the governor to proceed to the Federal High Court to challenge this move. EFCC can investigate the accounts but it can’t freeze the accounts without order of court.

Corroborating the Attorney General, Osun State Commissioner for Finance, Sola Ogungbile, alleged that police operatives had stormed the main branch of First Bank in Osogbo and arrested staff members of the bank. He also said Adeleke was not using state funds for his campaigns and urged the anti-graft agency to consider the implications that the move will have on the general well-being of the residents.Earlier, Adeleke raised the alarm that EFCC was planning to freeze all Osun State government accounts.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Governors spend N512bn on travels, offices

Published

on

Thirty-three state governments spent at least N512.10bn on Government Houses, Governors’ Offices and travel and transport in the first six months of 2026, an amount about 4,713 times higher than the combined six-month salary of Nigeria’s 36 governors, an analysis of state budget implementation reports has shown on Monday.

The analysis showed that while a governor’s stated monthly salary of N503,000 translates to N3.018m over six months, the combined six-month salary of all 36 governors would amount to just N108.65m.

Against this, the available records showed that N420.01bn was identified under Government House, Governor’s Office and related executive administration expenditure, while another N92.09bn was spent under travel and transport budget heads.

The combined amount stood at N512.10bn. The six-month salary of all 36 governors, therefore, represented only 0.02 per cent of the identified expenditure on executive offices and travel.

The figures offers a striking contrast to the ongoing debate over the official salaries of Nigerian governors.

Delta State Governor, Sheriff Oborevwori, recently said his monthly salary was N503,000, arguing that some senior civil servants, including permanent secretaries earned N900,000 monthly, more than state governors.

But an analysis of the cost of maintaining the offices occupied by governors shows that their salaries represent only a fraction of the wider public expenditure and perks associated with the offices.

While the personal salary of a governor may appear modest compared with the salaries of some senior public servants, the analysis shows that the wider cost of maintaining the executive office runs into hundreds of billions of naira.

The figure is not the personal income of governors. Government House and Governor’s Office budget heads cover a broad range of official expenses, including administrative operations, staff, protocol, maintenance, official residences, utilities, security-related activities, state functions and other expenditure required to run the executive arm of government.

Similarly, travel and transport spending covers official local and foreign trips, transportation and related expenses across the wider state public service.

However, the figures provide an indication of the enormous public cost attached to maintaining the structures surrounding the offices of state governors and the larger fiscal question on the  total public cost of maintaining the office and the administrative structures around it.

The analysis is based on available Budget Implementation Reports for the first and second quarters of 2026, using the largest identifiable Government House, Governor’s Office or executive administration expenditure line in each state, alongside the general travel and transport expenditure head.

See also  Beware of recruitment scams, FRSC warns Nigerians

Abia, Adamawa, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Borno, Cross River, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara had the complete data. Comparable data were unavailable for Edo, Osun and Rivers.

For comparison, available records for the first half of 2025 showed N465.07bn spent under Government House, Governor’s Office and similar executive administration heads, while N92.73bn was recorded for travel and transport. The combined figure stood at N557.80bn.

This means that, based on the states and budget heads for which comparable data were available, the first-half 2026 expenditure was about N45.70bn lower, representing a 8.19 per cent decline, compared with the corresponding period of 2025.

Government House and Governor’s Office expenditure accounted for the larger share of the spending.

The amount fell from N465.07bn in the first half of 2025 to N420.01bn in the corresponding period of 2026, representing a reduction of N45.05bn or 9.69 per cent.

Travel and transport spending, however, was largely unchanged. Available records showed that states spent N92.09bn on travel and transport in the first six months of 2026, compared with N92.73bn in the same period of 2025.

This represented a marginal decline of about N643.66m, or 0.69 per cent.

The figures suggest that while spending under Government House and executive administration heads moderated in the available records, the cost of official travel remained broadly stable.

Commenting on the development, a development economist, Aliyu Ilias, said the enormous cost associated with maintaining executive offices showed why it was misleading to focus only on a governor’s basic salary without taking into account the wider expenses and privileges attached to the office.

He argued that executive offices in Nigeria had become excessively expensive to maintain, partly because political office holders had significant influence over how the institutions under their control were structured and funded.

“Ordinarily, anything that has to do with executive office in Nigeria appears to be much more expensive because they actually direct how it works there. And with the docile state assemblies we have, who always concur, it is clear that our democracy is very expensive because of the way we maintain their offices, and that is why it is very juicy.

See also  Local Govt Bans Sleeping In Oyingbo Market

“Some even want to go as far as borrowing money to win an election and, when they enter office, they believe they are going to repay the money. So, it is not correct to say that a Permanent Secretary is earning better than a governor when you isolate the governor’s salary without adding the other travel perks and expenses attached to the office.

“The governor just wanted to be sensational. But with the addition you have done, it shows that they are taking the bigger cheque from the spending arising from the high income that the state is generating,” Ilias said.

A state-by-state analysis of the 2026 Government House or Governor’s Office expenditure, Kogi recorded the highest amount at N65.34bn, followed by Ogun with N45.26bn and Lagos with N45.04bn.

Kano recorded N25.87bn, while Ekiti spent N25.22bn and Cross River recorded N23.92bn.

Bayelsa recorded N22.99bn, Imo N19.43bn and Enugu N16.20bn.

At the lower end of the available records, Oyo recorded about N1.95bn, Sokoto N2.20bn, Kwara N2.59bn and Abia N2.78bn.

Kogi’s figure alone represented more than 15 per cent of the identifiable Government House and Governor’s Office expenditure captured in the 2026 dataset.

On travel and transport, Plateau recorded the highest identifiable expenditure at N10.11bn in the first six months of 2026.

Lagos followed with N8.23bn, while Taraba recorded N5.16bn.

Niger spent N4.45bn, Ekiti N4.41bn, while Bauchi recorded N3.75bn and Yobe N3.68bn.

Oyo recorded one of the lowest identifiable amounts at N667.52m, while Kano recorded N626.95m.

The figures also showed wide variations in expenditure patterns between 2025 and 2026.

For example, Kogi’s Government House and Governor’s Office expenditure increased from N51.99bn in the first half of 2025 to N65.34bn in the corresponding period of 2026. This represented an increase of about N13.34bn, or 25.66 per cent.

Bayelsa’s identifiable spending rose from N14.48bn to N22.99bn, an increase of N8.51bn, or 58.75 per cent.

Cross River’s expenditure increased from N9.91bn to N23.92bn, representing a rise of about N14.01bn, or 141.37 per cent.

Ekiti, which had no comparable 2025 figure in the dataset provided for this analysis, recorded N25.22bn in the first six months of 2026.

See also  Russia urges US to follow international law amid Nigeria military threat

Other states, however, recorded significant reductions.

Ogun’s identifiable Government House and Governor’s Office expenditure declined from N49.83bn in the first half of 2025 to N45.26bn in 2026, a reduction of N4.57bn, or 9.17 per cent.

Kano’s expenditure fell from N28.84bn to N25.87bn, representing a decline of about N2.98bn, or 10.32 per cent.

Niger recorded a smaller decline from N13.13bn to N14.15bn, although the available figures show an increase of about N1.02bn, or 7.74 per cent, underscoring the differences in spending patterns across the states.

Lagos recorded one of the most significant increases in the available data, with identifiable spending rising from N25.86bn in 2025 to N45.04bn in 2026, an increase of about N19.18bn, or 74.16 per cent.

The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission is constitutionally responsible for determining the remuneration of governors and other political office holders. The existing remuneration framework remains in force while a broader review is being processed by the relevant authorities.

In recent weeks, RMAFC said its review of remuneration for executive and legislative office holders had reached an advanced stage, with proposed legislation expected to be considered by the National Assembly.

The spending also comes at a time when state governments have received significantly higher allocations from the Federation Account following the Federal Government’s economic reforms.

An analysis of Ministry of Finance data previously showed that N47.25tn was shared through the Federation Account between 2023 and 2025 alone, accounting for more than half of the N93.13tn distributed over the nine years from 2017 to 2025.

The sharp increase in revenues has intensified public scrutiny over whether the additional resources flowing to states are being translated into better infrastructure and public services.

The records reveal a huge gap between the official salaries of governors and the actual cost of maintaining the executive structures around their offices.

While the basic pay of a governor may appear modest, it represents only a fraction of the public funds required to run Government Houses, Governors’ Offices and official travel. The broader question, therefore, is not simply how much governors earn as salaries, but how much it costs taxpayers to maintain the offices they occupy.

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

PHOTOS: Despite Court Warrant, Sunday Igboho Allegedly Stops Police From Arresting Tani Olohun In Ibadan

Published

on

A disturbing incident in Ibadan has raised serious questions about the conduct of the Nigerian Police and the circumstances surrounding the alleged attempted arrest of a traditionalist,Tani Olorun, reportedly over his longstanding religious disagreements with some Islamic clerics in Kwara State.

According to accounts circulating about the incident, a Toyota Hiace bus allegedly arrived at the traditionalist’s residence in Ibadan with four men believed to be police officers. Two were reportedly dressed in police uniform while the other two were in mufti.

What immediately raised suspicion was that the vehicle allegedly had no visible number plate, while the men reportedly failed to produce police identification when requested by the resident’s wife and neighbours. As the situation attracted a crowd, concerns grew that what was being presented as an arrest could instead be an unauthorised attempt to forcibly remove the man from his residence.

The situation reportedly took an even more dramatic turn when Chief Sunday Igboho arrived at the scene and intervened, insisting that the men follow proper police procedures.

The intervention reportedly stopped the attempted removal and the men were ordered to return to their ilorin base.

But the bigger question remains:

Why would security personnel travel all the way from Kwara to Ibadan to remove a traditionalist from his home under circumstances that allegedly failed to meet basic standards of police identification and due process?

The controversy is particularly sensitive because Tani Olorun has reportedly had longstanding disputes with some Islamic clerics over religious issues. He was previously arrested in Kwara following allegations that he defamed an Islamic cleric and reportedly spent a prolonged period in detention before his release.

See also  Coup plotters will face justice – Air chief

His subsequent outspoken criticism of religious teachings and defence of traditional African religion have reportedly continued to generate controversy.

This is where Chief Sunday Igboho’s confrontation with the Kwara State Commissioner of Police becomes significant.

Igboho was reportedly heard questioning why the Kwara Police Command[b] appeared to have the resources and urgency to pursue a controversial religious-related arrest in Ibadan, while communities in Kwara continue to complain about kidnapping, banditry and insecurity, including attacks allegedly affecting ordinary citizens and traditional rulers.[/b]

His message was essentially this:

If the police can travel from Kwara to Ibadan to arrest a traditionalist over a religious dispute, why has the same urgency not been demonstrated in confronting the kidnappers and bandits terrorising Kwara communities?

That question deserves a serious answer.

The Nigerian Police Force must not allow legitimate law enforcement to be confused with intimidation, religious persecution or extra-judicial abduction. If an individual is wanted for an offence, the police should identify themselves properly, present the appropriate documentation and follow established legal procedures.

No Nigerian citizen should be secretly taken away from his home under questionable circumstances.

And if this was indeed a legitimate arrest, then the authorities should explain clearly what offence was alleged, what warrant or lawful authority was relied upon, why officers travelled from Kwara to Ibadan, and why the operation reportedly generated such serious concerns about its legitimacy.

Chief Sunday Igboho’s intervention has therefore brought an important issue to the public space:

Law enforcement must protect Nigerians from kidnappers—not create circumstances in which Nigerians begin to fear that the police themselves may come to take them away.

See also  Kano paid N32bn gratuity, death benefits in three years

The allegations surrounding this incident should be thoroughly investigated, and the public deserves transparency.

Security must never become a tool for religious vendetta. Justice must never be selective. And an arrest must never look like a kidnapping.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

US plans mass visa revocation for asylum seekers — Report

Published

on

The United States government is planning to revoke the business and tourism visas of as many as 200,000 foreigners who have sought or are seeking asylum in the country, in what could become the largest mass visa revocation in US history.

The planned action targets holders of B1 and B2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 who entered the US as short-term visitors but subsequently applied for asylum, according to documents obtained by the Associated Press and two US officials, as reported by the agency on Monday.

The State Department is expected to begin announcing the revocations in the coming weeks in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott confirmed the planned action but said the number of affected people could change.

“We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” Pigott said.

He added that “the number of revocations remains dynamic” and that the action would be carried out “on a rolling basis.”

The revocations would not automatically lead to immediate deportation, according to the officials. People with pending asylum applications would instead lose their B1 or B2 status while their cases are considered.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau defended the proposed policy, arguing that visitor visas should not be used as a route into the US asylum system.

“Asylum isn’t supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law,” Landau said in a post on X.

See also  Ex-minister, Audu Ogbeh is dead

B1 visas are generally issued for business travel, while B2 visas cover tourism, family visits and medical treatment. Applicants are required to demonstrate that they intend to return to their home countries.

What it could mean for Nigerians

The proposed revocation could affect Nigerians among other foreign nationals, although the US government has not disclosed how many Nigerians may be involved in the 200,000 figure.

Nigerians have historically accounted for a significant share of African asylum applications in the US. According to UNHCR figures previously reported by The PUNCH, 2,827 Nigerians applied for asylum in the US in 2024.

Between 2022 and 2024, US immigration courts granted asylum to 1,372 Nigerians, while 1,534 applications were denied.

For Nigerians currently holding B1 or B2 visas who have applied for asylum, the development could mean losing their visitor status and facing closer scrutiny of their immigration cases. It also signals a tougher environment for Nigerians seeking to use short-term US visas as a pathway to remain in the country.

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending