As a political analyst, the freezing of the Osun State government account barely ten days to a governorship election is morally indefensible, legally questionable in its timing and application, and democratically corrosive.
This action reeks of pure witch-hunting rather than any genuine anti-corruption effort.
It is timed with surgical precision to financially and psychologically incapacitate the incumbent administration and its supporters at the most sensitive moment of the electoral calendar.
Public funds are the lifeblood of governance and campaign logistics; immobilising them now is not accountability—it is strategic sabotage designed to tilt the field.
Nigeria’s democratic history offers a clear caution. Had President Goodluck Jonathan’s government frozen the accounts of opposition-controlled states in the run-up to elections, the APC would never have been allowed to consolidate power or present itself as a champion of democratic norms.
The same voices that rightly condemned such tactics then cannot now look the other way. Selective justice destroys the legitimacy of institutions faster than any isolated act of graft.
What has been done to the Osun governor and his government over time already strained democratic boundaries.
This latest freeze is the climax: an untimely, bad-faith intervention that prioritises political advantage over institutional restraint.
Fighting corruption is a permanent duty, not a seasonal weapon. If genuine irregularities exist, due process after the election—transparent, non-partisan, and insulated from electoral pressure—is the proper path. Freezing accounts on the eve of voting achieves the opposite of justice; it manufactures a crisis of confidence and morale.
The account should be unfrozen immediately and remain so until after the governorship election. Anything less confirms that the measure is about power, not principle.
Nigerians across party lines ought to condemn this practice without equivocation. Democracy does not survive when state power is deployed to starve opponents of resources in the final stretch of a contest. Precedent matters.
However, Governor Adeleke has publicly called on the EFCC Chairman to explain to Nigerians the precise grounds for freezing the state government’s account a mere ten days before the election.
To date, no tangible, evidence-based reasons have been provided.
In the absence of clear justification, citizens are left to connect the dots themselves: the action appears driven by apprehension that the incumbent might defeat the preferred candidate of those who ordered or facilitated the freeze.
This interpretation is not speculative gossip; it is the logical reading of an intervention that is both untimely and unexplained. When an anti-graft agency fails to offer transparent grounds for such a high-stakes move at the height of an electoral contest, the presumption of political motive becomes unavoidable.
Democracy cannot rest on silence and selective timing. The demand for a public explanation remains unanswered, and that silence itself stands as the clearest indictment of the decision.
Today it is Osu; tomorrow it will be another state under a different administration. The only consistent defence of democratic norms is to reject this tactic now.
Pamela 0.
Political Analyst and Columnist.
About the Author
