Calls for the removal of the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ola Olukoyede, intensified on Friday following the controversy over the agency’s restriction of accounts belonging to the Osun State Government.

Opposition parties and some Nigerians accused the anti-graft agency of political interference, particularly because the action came days before the August 15 Osun State governorship election.

The Accord Party and New Nigeria People’s Party called for Olukoyede’s resignation, while some Nigerians on social media also demanded his removal.

However, the Presidency said there was no indication that the EFCC chairman would be sacked, while human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, defended the commission’s action and questioned President Bola Tinubu’s authority to direct the agency to reverse it.

The controversy began on Wednesday when the EFCC restricted transactions on an Osun State Government account domiciled with First Bank over alleged suspicious transactions.

The commission said it had been investigating the account since March 2026 and maintained that it had legal powers to restrict an account for up to 72 hours where there was reasonable suspicion of financial crimes.

President Tinubu, however, on Thursday directed the EFCC to lift the restriction and described the action as embarrassing to his administration.

The President also directed the commission to return to court to vacate any order it had obtained concerning the accounts.

The development triggered widespread reactions, with thousands of comments posted on social media criticising the timing of the EFCC’s action.

Accord Party demands Olukoyede’s resignation

Speaking at a press conference in Abuja on Friday, National Chairman of the Accord Party, Maxwell Mgbudem, said the party had lost confidence in the EFCC leadership.

Mgbudem alleged that the commission had demonstrated partisanship in Osun politics and demanded Olukoyede’s immediate resignation.

“Having demonstrated unprecedented partisanship in Osun State politics, assaulted the sensibilities of fellow compatriots and brought the nation to ridicule and disrepute before the international community, Accord has lost confidence in the current leadership of the EFCC,” he said.

He added that if Olukoyede failed to resign, Tinubu should remove him to restore public confidence in the anti-corruption agency.

The party also called on security agencies and other institutions involved in the Osun election to remain impartial and operate within the law.

The National Chairman of the NNPP, Major Agbo, also backed calls for Olukoyede’s resignation, although he expressed concern that the President’s intervention could undermine the perceived independence of the EFCC.

Agbo said the President should have allowed the commission to complete its investigation, regardless of the timing of the account restriction.

Asked whether he supported Olukoyede’s resignation, Agbo said, “Yes. Sadly, it has to happen.”

Obidient movement backs resignation call

National Coordinator of the Obidient Movement Worldwide, Yunusa Tanko, also advised the EFCC chairman to consider stepping down to protect his reputation.

Tanko said the President’s directive had created the impression that the EFCC chairman was operating under political influence.

“The kind of response I got from the EFCC shows that Olukoyede tried to assert his independence. It seems the directive from a higher authority made him look like a puppet,” Tanko said.

He added that the controversy was ultimately about the relationship between the President and the anti-graft agency.

Presidency says Olukoyede still has his job

Despite the growing calls for his removal, sources within the Presidency dismissed suggestions that Olukoyede was about to lose his position.

According to the sources, Tinubu’s frustration was directed at the timing and public perception of the EFCC’s action rather than the chairman personally.

“No, he still has his job. The fact that the President said he was embarrassed by the EFCC’s move does not mean he will be fired,” one presidential source said.

Another source, who claimed to have spoken with Olukoyede, said the controversy did not automatically mean the EFCC chairman would be dismissed.

“Someone had to take the fall, and in this case, it is the EFCC chairman. That alone is not a basis for dismissal,” the source said.

Falana defends EFCC

Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, meanwhile, defended the EFCC’s actions and questioned the President’s directive.

Falana said the commission acted within its statutory powers and argued that the President did not have the authority to directly interfere in the operational decisions of the EFCC.

He also noted that the commission had obtained a court order relating to the accounts.

“If a court made an order against you, are you not supposed to approach the court to set it aside?” Falana asked.

He maintained that the EFCC had the power under the law to restrict an account for up to 72 hours where it suspected fraudulent activity before seeking further legal authority.

Labour Party raises concern over presidential directive

The National Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party, Ken Asogwa, rejected calls for Olukoyede’s resignation but expressed concern about the President’s intervention.

Asogwa said the directive to unfreeze the Osun account raised questions about the independence of the EFCC.

“If he could single-handedly direct the EFCC to unfreeze the Osun State Government’s account, then it follows that he can also direct the commission to take certain decisions,” he said.

According to him, the development was “very worrisome” for the independence of an anti-corruption agency.

Reps minority caucus queries government’s position

The minority caucus of the House of Representatives also criticised the Federal Government over what it described as contradictory explanations surrounding the account restriction.

The caucus, in a statement signed by its Leader, Fredrick Agbedi, and spokesman, Afam Ogene, described Tinubu’s directive as a “panicky, belated afterthought.”

The lawmakers questioned the apparent contradiction between the EFCC’s explanation and the President’s subsequent directive that the commission return to court.

They also accused the Federal Government of exerting economic and political pressure on Osun ahead of the governorship election.

The caucus alleged that statutory allocations meant for some Osun local governments had also been withheld or seized, describing the situation as an attempt to weaken grassroots administration.

The lawmakers further raised allegations of political violence in the state and warned that the developments could have implications beyond the August 15 election.

Court order confirms EFCC obtained legal backing

Amid the controversy, a certified true copy of a Federal High Court order obtained by the EFCC showed that the commission had secured judicial authorisation to restrict three accounts belonging to the Osun State Government.

The order, issued on August 5, 2026, by Justice M.G. Umar in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1750/2026, followed an ex-parte application filed by the EFCC chairman.

The court authorised the EFCC chairman, or an officer empowered by him, to instruct the affected banks to freeze the accounts pending the conclusion of investigation and prosecution.

The order stated that the accounts were being investigated over alleged diversion of public funds and money laundering.

The affected accounts included the Osun State Government Federal Allocation Account domiciled with First Bank and two Osun State Joint Allocation Accounts with Zenith Bank.

The court order has added a new dimension to the controversy, with questions now focused on the legal basis of the President’s directive to reverse the restriction and the extent of presidential powers over the EFCC.

With the Osun governorship election only days away, the dispute has also heightened concerns among political parties and civil society groups over the neutrality of federal institutions and the need to prevent security and anti-corruption agencies from being perceived as instruments of political influence.