The Osun State Government has dismissed allegations that about ₦11 billion was diverted from the state’s treasury, insisting that no public funds were looted and that the decision by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to freeze its bank accounts was politically motivated.
The state government said the anti-graft agency’s action had nothing to do with corruption.
Instead, it alleged that the accounts were frozen on the instruction of former Osun State Governor, Gboyega Oyetola, to stop the payment of palliatives approved for workers ahead of the August 15 governorship election.
The government made the claims in a statement issued on Thursday by the Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment, Kolapo Alimi, through his official X account.
The statement came after the EFCC explained that it froze the state’s accounts to prevent the alleged diversion of public funds before the governorship poll.
Rejecting the allegation, the Osun government maintained that there was no financial misconduct in the management of public resources.
It said the claims of missing funds were false and only introduced to justify what it described as an unlawful decision to freeze government accounts.
According to the statement, “The real reason the commission froze the state account on the order of Gboyega Oyetola was to stop the payment of palliatives which the state government promised the workers some months ago.”
The government said the move failed to achieve its objective because the approved palliatives had already been paid to workers across the state.
It explained that the financial support formed part of measures introduced to reduce the burden of the rising cost of living on civil servants and other public workers.
The statement added, “Fortunately, we have paid the palliatives to all Osun State workers,” stressing that the payment was not the first cost-of-living subsidy provided by the current administration.
The government insisted that despite the challenges created by the freezing of its accounts, it fulfilled its promise to workers after consultations with labour unions and other stakeholders.
It also accused the EFCC of acting in the interest of the All Progressives Congress (APC), alleging that the investigation into the state’s finances was driven by political considerations rather than genuine anti-corruption efforts.
According to the government, “All material facts point to the fact that the commission is pursuing a hatchet job for the Osun APC by illegally freezing the state account and falsely accusing the government of looting ecological and other state funds.”
The state administration further defended its financial records, saying available resources had been committed to infrastructure projects, workers’ welfare and development programmes across different sectors.
It insisted there were no hidden funds available for diversion because government revenue had been spent on projects designed to improve the lives of residents.
The statement read, “We don’t loot public funds in Osun State; we deliver on public goods and services.”
It added, “There is no fund to loot in Osun State as the little resources we have are expended on the many mega projects, workers welfare and sectoral developments for the benefit of the masses.”
The government also disclosed that the EFCC had been investigating several senior officials since March 2026 but claimed that the exercise had not produced any evidence linking them to corruption.
According to the statement, “The EFCC has been conducting a witch-hunting investigation since March, 2026, without any indicting evidence against top officials.”
It alleged that government officials had been subjected to repeated invitations and what it described as weekly harassment aimed at disrupting governance and slowing the implementation of public programmes.
The Osun government argued that if the commission genuinely had evidence of wrongdoing, it should have followed established legal procedures by prosecuting those involved instead of freezing government accounts.
It stated, “Assuming but not conceding that the EFCC has any evidence of looting as posited, there are established procedures for bringing suspects to book instead of a politically motivated, unlawful freezing of government accounts without recourse to the rule of law.”
The administration described the EFCC’s explanation as an attempt to defend an action that had generated widespread criticism.
According to the government, the allegation of looting was only introduced after the account freeze became a subject of public debate.
The statement concluded, “It is sad that a commission will lie to destroy the image of a state to cover up an illegal action that has backfired. This alibi from the commission is an afterthought and it cannot stand the test of truth in reality and the court of public opinion.”
