The attention of the immediate past Governor of Benue State and Leader of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the state, Chief Samuel Ortom has been drawn to a mischievous report being circulated on social media alleging that he and other leaders of the party held a secret meeting with some chieftains of the All Progressives Congress, APC, with the aim of replacing the 2027 PDP governorship candidate, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, with the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council, Dr. Pius Akutah.

The report is false, misleading and a deliberate distortion of the facts.

For the avoidance of doubt, Chief Ortom, alongside the Senate Minority Leader, Senator Patrick Abba Moro, and the PDP governorship candidate, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, met with some prominent Benue sons, including Chief Simon Shango, Professor Iyorwuese Hagher, Dr. Pius Akutah, Engr. Emmanuel Ameh and Dr. Matthias Byuan.

The meeting was part of ongoing consultations and engagements aimed at building a broad strategic alliance of Benue stakeholders for the greater good of the state. At no time during the meeting was the replacement of Chief Aondoakaa as the PDP governorship candidate discussed, contemplated or placed on the agenda.

It is therefore mischievous for anyone to take a legitimate meeting of Benue leaders and manufacture an entirely different motive for it. Political consultations and engagements across party lines are neither strange nor secret conspiracies, particularly when they are driven by the larger interest of the people.

Chief Ortom wishes to state unequivocally that Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, remains the duly nominated governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in Benue State for the 2027 election. The former Attorney General and Minister of Justice enjoys the confidence and support of the leadership and members of the party.

Chief Ortom equally reaffirms his conviction that Aondoakaa possesses the experience, competence, capacity and understanding of the challenges confronting Benue State to provide purposeful leadership and reposition the state on the path of security, economic recovery and sustainable development.

Those behind the false narrative are advised to desist forthwith from spreading fabricated stories capable of creating unnecessary confusion among members and supporters of the PDP and the general public. Political journalism and commentary must be anchored on facts, not conjecture, deliberate falsehood or the attribution of imaginary motives to legitimate engagements.

Chief Ortom urges PDP members, teeming supporters of Chief Aondoakaa and the people of Benue State to disregard the baseless report and remain focused. No amount of misinformation or political mischief will distract the PDP leadership from its commitment to building a formidable coalition of Benue people towards offering the state a credible alternative in 2027.

Signed:

Zege Paul Terhide
Media Assistant to Chief Samuel Ortom
August 7, 2026

The Governor of Osun State, Ademola Adeleke, on Thursday slammed a N2 billion suit on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over what he termed the unlawful freezing of the state’s Federal Statutory Allocation Account.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1762/2026, also has the Attorney General of Osun State, as well as the Accountant General of the state, listed as 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, respectively.

Cited as 1st to 3rd defendants in the Originating Summons entered before the Federal High Court in Abuja by a team of lawyers led by Prof. M. T. Adekilekun, SAN, are the EFCC, its Chairman, and First Bank Nigeria Limited.

Specifically, the plaintiffs posed several legal questions for the court to determine, among which are:

“Whether, having regard to the express provisions of Sections 1, 6, 36, 44 and 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants possess the lawful authority to freeze, restrict, block, place a ‘post no debit’ order on, or otherwise interfere with the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the 3rd Defendant, without regard to due process of law?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants possess the lawful authority to freeze, restrict, block, place a ‘post no debit’ order on, or otherwise interfere with the Osun State Government Federal Statutory Allocation Account, Number 2017170947, maintained with the 3rd Defendant, without first obtaining and serving a valid, subsisting, and specific order of a court of competent jurisdiction?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the directive of the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant ordering the freezing or restriction of the Osun State Statutory Account No. 2017170947, maintained with the 3rd Defendant, vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and authored by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), without any prior or concurrent court order sought, obtained and served on the 3rd Defendant, does not constitute an egregious act of executive lawlessness, an unlawful resort to self-help, a flagrant abuse of statutory powers, an unlawful suppression of the constitutional powers and functions of the Plaintiffs, a threat to the constitutional and corporate existence of Osun State, a brazen and unlawful denial of the democratic rights and dividends of the people of Osun State, and a direct violation of the fundamental constitutional principles of due process, the rule of law, and the financial autonomy of a federating unit?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 3rd Defendant, being the banker to the Government of Osun State in respect of the said statutory account, can lawfully freeze or continue to freeze, restrict, block, or deny the Government of Osun State unrestricted access to the said account merely upon an administrative directive, letter, request, instruction, or communication from the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants in the manner done herein, in the absence of a valid, subsisting, and specific order of a court of competent jurisdiction?

“Whether, having regard to the effect of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, and in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, this Honourable Court ought not to forthwith set aside the directive given by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant in a letter dated 5th August 2026 ordering the freezing, restriction, blocking, or placing of a post-no-debit instruction on the Osun State Statutory Account with the 3rd Defendant, given that such action was allegedly taken in violation of due process, and in a manner demonstrably capable of crippling the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Government to the people of Osun State?”

As well as: “Whether, having regard to the effect of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, and in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, the 3rd Defendant did not breach the duty of care owed to the Osun State Government when, on the purported directive of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, it placed a restriction on the Osun State Statutory Account with the 3rd Defendant, given that such action was allegedly taken without a court order, in violation of due process, and in a manner demonstrably capable of crippling the constitutional and statutory obligations and rights of the Government and people of Osun State.”

Upon determination of the questions, the plaintiffs, among other things, urged the court to declare the actions the defendants took with respect to the Osun State account as “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires their powers, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.”

They further sought:
“An order setting aside, vacating, and nullifying the freezing, restriction, blocking, post-no-debit instruction, or any other restraint placed on the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the 3rd Defendant vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and authored by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), for being unlawful, unconstitutional, and without legal basis.
“An order mandating the 3rd Defendant to forthwith unfreeze, unblock, and remove all restrictions, and to allow the Government of Osun State immediate and unrestricted access to and operation of the said Osun State Statutory Account.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants, whether by themselves, their officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on their behalf, from freezing, restricting, blocking, placing a post-no-debit instruction on, or otherwise interfering with the Osun State Statutory Account or any other account of the Government of Osun State without following due process of the law.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant, whether by itself, its officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on its behalf, from acting on any directive, letter, instruction, or request from the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants to freeze, restrict, block, or deny access to the Osun State Statutory Account, except in the manner stipulated by law.”

They also prayed the court to award N2 billion against the defendants to serve as “exemplary and aggravated damages for the unlawful interference with public funds,” as well as an order directing the defendants to pay the costs of the litigation.

Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for the suit, which was filed shortly after President Bola Tinubu directed the EFCC to immediately approach the court to unfreeze the Osun State Federal Statutory Allocation Account.

President Bola Tinubu has directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to immediately vacate the court order freezing the Osun State Government’s bank account.

The directive followed widespread criticism that greeted the anti-graft agency’s decision to freeze the account domiciled in First Bank about 10 days before the state’s governorship election.

In a statement titled, “President Tinubu Directs EFCC to Vacate the Court Order Freezing Osun Government Account,” issued by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the President said he was “deeply embarrassed” by the timing of the EFCC’s action.

Tinubu clarified that his concern was not with the EFCC’s statutory powers or its decision to obtain a court order, but with the timing of the move, which he said had created negative public perception.

He noted that actions taken by federal institutions are often attributed to the President, even when he has no prior knowledge of them.

“Since assuming office, I have consistently maintained that anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies must be allowed to discharge their statutory responsibilities independently, professionally, without fear or favour, or political interference,” the statement quoted the President as saying.

Tinubu said he had deliberately refrained from interfering in the operational activities of the EFCC and other investigative agencies because he believes that strong democratic institutions operating within the law are essential to good governance and the rule of law.

He added that state institutions should be allowed to perform their statutory functions without requiring presidential approval for every action.

“Accordingly, I have directed the EFCC to immediately proceed to the court to vacate the order and discontinue whatever action it has instituted against the Osun State Government in this regard,” the statement said.

The EFCC had obtained a court order freezing the Osun State Government’s account as part of an ongoing investigation. However, the action drew criticism from opposition parties and other stakeholders, who alleged that the move could affect the credibility of the forthcoming governorship election in the state.

The anti-graft agency has yet to publicly respond to the President’s directive.