TINUBU GOVERNMENT USING EFCC TO BLACKMAIL GOVERNORS INTO APC, MAKINDE ALLEGES

Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde has accused the administration of President Bola Tinubu of using the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other forms of pressure to intimidate opposition governors and push them toward the ruling All Progressives Congress, warning that such conduct threatens the survival of competitive multiparty democracy in Nigeria. Speaking during an exclusive interview with ARISE News anchor Ojy Okpe, Makinde alleged that governors who refuse to defect to the APC can face intensified financial scrutiny involving contractors, bank accounts and state transactions, creating what he described as a climate of political coercion ahead of the 2027 presidential election. He did not provide documentary evidence during the interview establishing that President Tinubu or APC officials directly instructed the EFCC to target specific governors, while the anti-graft agency has previously rejected accusations that its investigations are driven by partisan political considerations.

Makinde said the pattern he sees under the current administration goes beyond normal political persuasion and reflects an attempt to weaken opposition parties by drawing governors into the ruling party through pressure rather than convincing voters through policy and performance. According to the governor, rather than concentrating on persuading Nigerians who did not support the APC in the last presidential election, the ruling establishment has increasingly focused on bringing opposition governors into its political structure. He argued that the movement of governors and other prominent politicians into the APC should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the ruling party has gained genuine popular support among ordinary voters.

During the interview, Makinde described a hypothetical example of how he believes pressure can be applied to an opposition-controlled state. He said a contractor working for such a government could suddenly become the subject of an EFCC inquiry in which investigators demand details of contracts, payments and bank transactions, creating pressure that may eventually reach the governor. Makinde characterised that process as blackmail, saying governors could then be faced with the choice of joining the APC or continuing to deal with financial and investigative scrutiny.

The governor’s allegation is politically significant because it comes at a time when several prominent opposition figures have defected to the APC and when Nigeria’s political landscape is undergoing major realignment ahead of the 2027 elections. Makinde has increasingly positioned himself as one of the most outspoken critics of the Tinubu administration and has warned repeatedly against the country drifting toward a one-party system. He argues that democracy requires strong opposition parties capable of challenging the government and that political competition should be decided by voters rather than through institutional pressure or the weakening of rival parties.

Makinde did not identify a specific governor who had personally told him that the EFCC forced a defection, nor did he present evidence connecting a particular investigation directly to an order from the presidency. That distinction is important because his remarks amount to a serious political allegation rather than an established judicial finding. The EFCC has consistently maintained that its investigations are based on evidence and statutory responsibilities rather than political affiliation, and there has been no public confirmation from the commission that it has been directed by the Tinubu administration to use corruption investigations as leverage for party defections.

The controversy also intersects with a separate debate over federal funding to Oyo State. During the same round of interviews, Makinde strongly denied claims that President Tinubu gave his administration ₦50 billion for the upgrade of the Ibadan airport, describing the allegation as false. He said Oyo approached the federal government for approval to upgrade the airport and received that approval in May 2024, but maintained that the approval specifically placed no financial obligation on the federal government.

Makinde said the airport project has been funded by the Oyo State government as part of its broader economic development strategy and rejected suggestions that the state received a special presidential intervention for the project. He contrasted Oyo’s position with federal reimbursements and interventions involving airport projects in other states, arguing that his administration did not receive comparable direct support for Ibadan. The governor used that example to reinforce his argument that political narratives about federal generosity toward Oyo have sometimes been exaggerated or misrepresented.

The debate over federal money has become particularly sensitive because Makinde has previously acknowledged that states are receiving significantly larger nominal allocations from the Federation Account following the removal of fuel subsidies and changes in national revenue flows. However, he argues that those higher figures do not necessarily translate into greater prosperity because inflation, currency depreciation and rising operating costs have also increased dramatically. In his words, higher federal allocation should not automatically be treated as proof that states are financially stronger in real economic terms.

Makinde said Oyo State’s monthly salary obligations have increased sharply since he became governor in 2019, while infrastructure projects that once required several billion naira now cost substantially more. He therefore rejected arguments from APC figures that higher allocations alone should be enough to address poverty or economic hardship at state level. His broader position is that federal economic policy has reduced the purchasing power of the money states receive, making nominal increases less meaningful than they appear.

That argument has been challenged by APC politicians in Oyo State, who say Makinde should account more clearly for how increased federal allocations have been spent. The campaign organisation of the APC’s Oyo governorship candidate has argued that the state has received significantly more money under Tinubu’s economic reforms and should therefore be delivering greater relief to residents. The group has accused Makinde of using criticism of the federal government to avoid scrutiny of his own management of state resources.

Makinde, however, insists that the underlying economic problem is national rather than purely local. He argues that state governments cannot fully insulate themselves from inflation, exchange-rate instability, high energy costs and other macroeconomic conditions determined largely by federal policy. That position forms part of his explanation for why he has moved from supporting Tinubu in 2023 to openly challenging the direction of the administration ahead of the 2027 election.

The relationship between Makinde and Tinubu has changed dramatically since the last presidential contest. Makinde was one of the five Peoples Democratic Party governors known as the G5 who refused to support their party’s presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, in 2023. He later disclosed that his support for Tinubu was linked to an understanding that the incoming administration would pursue a government of national unity and accommodate different political interests.

Makinde now says that understanding was not honoured. He has claimed that there was a written agreement connected to the arrangement and that he still possesses a copy. According to him, his support for Tinubu was not simply based on ethnic solidarity or personal friendship but on an expectation that the new administration would govern inclusively and draw credible figures from across political divides.

The governor says his disappointment over the handling of that arrangement contributed to the breakdown in his political relationship with the president. He has increasingly criticised Tinubu’s economic policies, the state of national security and what he describes as efforts to weaken opposition parties. Makinde is now campaigning as a presidential candidate and has framed his challenge as one based on governance and national direction rather than personal conflict.

His criticism has extended beyond party politics. Makinde has also said President Tinubu failed to contact him during the 56-day captivity of pupils and teachers abducted in Oyo State, despite his efforts to reach the president. He argued that a serious security crisis affecting any part of the federation should attract direct presidential attention and said the episode contributed to his growing concerns about the relationship between federal and state governments.

Those remarks have intensified the political distance between both men. Makinde, who once helped Tinubu politically during the 2023 presidential race despite remaining in the PDP at the time, is now presenting himself as a direct critic of the administration’s record. He has argued that personal relationships should not prevent political leaders from speaking out when they believe national institutions are being weakened.

The allegation involving the EFCC is particularly sensitive because Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies have repeatedly faced accusations of selective enforcement under successive administrations. Opposition politicians have often claimed that investigations become more aggressive when individuals fall out with the government, while ruling parties have consistently denied using the agencies for political purposes. The EFCC itself maintains that corruption investigations are based on evidence and that political status does not protect any individual from scrutiny.

Makinde’s accusation therefore touches on a long-running national debate about the independence of investigative institutions. If anti-corruption agencies are perceived as neutral, investigations can strengthen public accountability. If they are perceived as instruments of political coercion, the legitimacy of legitimate investigations can be damaged because every case involving an opposition politician may be interpreted through a partisan lens.

The governor argued that this perception is particularly dangerous during an election period. He said opposition parties need enough institutional space to campaign, organise and challenge the ruling party without fearing that government agencies will be used against them. In his view, democratic competition becomes distorted when politicians believe their personal or financial exposure depends on whether they cooperate with the party controlling the federal government.

Makinde also linked the issue to the pattern of defections that has changed Nigeria’s political landscape over the last several years. Governors and senior politicians from opposition parties have moved into the APC, often citing internal party crises, development partnerships with the federal government or confidence in Tinubu’s leadership. Opposition figures, however, have sometimes alleged that threats, incentives or investigations played a role in some of those moves.

The APC has repeatedly rejected that characterisation. Party officials have argued that politicians join the ruling party voluntarily because they believe it offers a stronger political platform and closer cooperation with the federal government. In earlier responses to similar accusations, APC officials said no governor had been denied statutory federal allocations or forced to defect and described allegations of coercion as politically motivated.

That response underscores the difference between constitutionally guaranteed federal allocations and discretionary political support. Money distributed through the Federation Account belongs to federal, state and local governments according to established revenue-sharing arrangements and is not a personal gift from the president. Any suggestion that such statutory funds can lawfully be withheld to pressure governors would therefore raise serious constitutional questions.

Makinde’s comments did not establish that Oyo State’s statutory allocations had been withheld or threatened. Instead, his principal allegation concerned investigative and financial pressure through institutions such as the EFCC. That is why the claim should not be reported as though he said Tinubu personally threatened to seize federal allocations unless he provides evidence or makes such a statement directly.

The separate controversy over alleged federal support to Oyo has nevertheless become part of the political battle. Former Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose had previously claimed that Makinde received tens of billions of naira in federal assistance connected to the January 2024 Bodija explosion in Ibadan. Different reports circulated figures of ₦30 billion and ₦50 billion, leading to significant public disagreement over what was actually provided and how the funds were used.

Oyo State officials have disputed aspects of those claims and argued that the figures have been politically distorted. The controversy demonstrates why financial narratives have become important weapons in the growing conflict between Makinde and figures aligned with the federal government. Claims about grants, reimbursements and allocations can easily become intertwined with accusations of political loyalty.

Makinde has attempted to separate his state’s constitutional revenue from his relationship with Tinubu. He argues that states are entitled to their statutory allocations regardless of which party their governors belong to and that receiving federal funds should never be portrayed as a personal favour requiring political repayment. That principle is important in Nigeria’s federal structure because state governments depend heavily on revenue distributed from the central Federation Account.

The governor has said Oyo has worked to reduce its dependence on federal revenue by expanding internally generated income and investing in infrastructure intended to support private-sector growth. He has cited road projects, agriculture and the Ibadan airport upgrade as examples of efforts to build a stronger state economy. However, he also acknowledges that federal allocations still represent a substantial portion of state revenue.

His critics argue that this dependence makes his criticism of Tinubu inconsistent, particularly because federal allocations have increased significantly during the current administration. Makinde rejects that argument and says constitutional revenue is not a political favour and should not be used as evidence that a state governor owes loyalty to the president.

That disagreement goes to the heart of the current political confrontation. Makinde is attempting to portray himself as an opposition governor willing to challenge the federal government despite the financial dependence that often shapes relations between Abuja and the states. Tinubu’s allies, in contrast, argue that the administration has increased the resources available to state governments and that governors should be judged on how effectively they use those funds.

The conflict also has a clear electoral dimension. Makinde is now one of the politicians seeking to challenge Tinubu in the 2027 presidential election and has been speaking with other opposition figures, including Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, about possible cooperation. His criticism of the APC’s approach to opposition governors therefore forms part of a broader argument that the coming election should remain genuinely competitive.

Makinde has said he would accept defeat if the election is conducted freely, fairly and credibly. During the ARISE News interview, he said he would respect the outcome if Nigerians rejected his candidacy through a transparent process. His emphasis, however, was that political competition must not be distorted before election day through intimidation, court manipulation or pressure on opposition parties.

The governor’s accusation that the government is trying to create a one-party environment is likely to remain a major campaign theme. Nigeria has operated as a multiparty democracy since the return to civilian rule in 1999, but the balance between ruling and opposition parties has shifted repeatedly as politicians defect between platforms. Critics of dominant-party politics argue that excessive concentration of power can weaken accountability, while ruling parties often respond that defections simply reflect political choice.

Makinde’s position is that voters rather than political institutions should determine whether the APC expands its influence. He argues that if Nigerians are satisfied with Tinubu’s government they should return him to office, while dissatisfied voters should have meaningful opposition alternatives. Any attempt to weaken those alternatives outside the ballot box, he says, undermines democratic competition.

The presidency had not, at the time of the latest reports, issued a detailed response specifically addressing Makinde’s fresh allegation that the EFCC is being used to blackmail governors. The EFCC has also not publicly confirmed any political instruction from the presidency connected to the cases he described. Without such evidence, the allegation remains Makinde’s political claim rather than an established fact.

That distinction does not diminish the seriousness of the charge. If evidence emerged that federal investigative agencies were deliberately being used to force elected governors to change political parties, it would raise major constitutional and democratic concerns. It would also call into question the independence of anti-corruption institutions whose credibility depends on applying the law without partisan influence.

At the same time, legitimate investigations involving governors, contractors or public funds cannot automatically be dismissed as political simply because the individuals involved belong to opposition parties. Public officials remain accountable for government expenditure regardless of party membership. The central question is whether investigations are initiated and pursued according to evidence and law rather than political instruction.

Makinde has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that distinction was violated in any specific case. His argument is based primarily on what he describes as a broader pattern of behaviour. Further evidence would therefore be necessary to establish the allegation beyond political assertion.

The issue is likely to remain prominent because the 2027 campaign is intensifying and relationships between federal institutions and opposition-controlled states are coming under greater scrutiny. Every major EFCC investigation involving a prominent opposition politician may now be interpreted against the background of Makinde’s accusation, whether or not the two are connected.

That creates a challenge for the EFCC itself. The commission will need to demonstrate transparent procedures and consistent enforcement if it wants to avoid becoming part of partisan campaign narratives. Investigations involving ruling-party figures will also be closely watched as evidence of whether enforcement standards are genuinely even.

The Tinubu administration faces a similar credibility challenge. The president and APC can reject allegations of political coercion, but the most persuasive response would be institutional evidence showing that statutory allocations, investigations and federal programmes are administered without regard to party loyalty. Nigeria’s federal structure requires cooperation between governments controlled by different political parties, particularly in areas such as security, infrastructure and disaster response.

Makinde’s criticism also reflects a wider breakdown in the political arrangement that existed between him and Tinubu during the 2023 election. The governor’s support at that time was unusual because he remained a member of the opposition PDP while refusing to campaign for Atiku. The relationship between Makinde and Tinubu was therefore built partly on cross-party cooperation.

That cooperation has now given way to direct competition. Makinde says his experience with the administration convinced him that the government has not delivered the inclusive leadership he expected. Tinubu’s allies, meanwhile, increasingly treat Makinde as an opposition presidential challenger rather than a friendly governor.

The political consequences are particularly visible in Oyo State, where APC figures are trying to expand their influence ahead of the election. Recent defections have intensified competition between Makinde’s camp and the ruling party, while both sides are accusing each other of misrepresenting the state’s economic and political situation.

Federal allocations have become one of the principal areas of disagreement because the amounts flowing to states have increased substantially since the removal of fuel subsidies. APC politicians argue that governors now have more money to address local hardship, while Makinde says inflation and economic instability have eroded the real value of those funds.

The distinction between nominal revenue and real purchasing power is economically significant. A state government may receive more naira while simultaneously facing dramatically higher costs for wages, construction materials, fuel and imported equipment. That means a simple comparison of allocation figures does not necessarily show whether a state’s financial position has improved.

Makinde has used that argument to defend his administration and criticise the federal government’s economic management. He says the national economy ultimately shapes what states can achieve, regardless of improvements in internally generated revenue. That position has become part of his presidential campaign message.

His opponents reject the implication that the federal government should bear primary responsibility for conditions in Oyo. They argue that governors control substantial resources and have significant authority over local development. The electoral debate will therefore include competing claims over where responsibility for economic hardship should lie.

The latest blackmail allegation adds an institutional dimension to that debate. Rather than criticising only economic policy, Makinde is now questioning the way the ruling party exercises political power and the independence of federal investigative institutions. That broadens his confrontation with Tinubu from a dispute over governance performance into a debate over democratic structure.

Whether Makinde can substantiate those allegations will determine how much weight they carry beyond the campaign. Political accusations are common during elections, but claims involving misuse of law-enforcement agencies require evidence if they are to move from rhetoric into established fact.

For now, the verified position is that Makinde has accused the Tinubu administration of using EFCC scrutiny to pressure opposition governors toward the APC. He has also separately denied receiving a special ₦50 billion federal intervention for the Ibadan airport and argued that statutory federal allocations should not be portrayed as political gifts from the president.

The presidency and APC are likely to face continued pressure to respond as Makinde repeats the allegation during the campaign. The EFCC may also be asked to address whether its investigations have been influenced by political considerations, particularly where opposition governors or contractors are involved.

What remains unverified is the broader claim that specific governors have actually defected because of such pressure. Makinde has described what he believes is happening but has not publicly produced direct evidence linking a particular defection to an instruction from Tinubu or the APC.

That distinction will remain important as the story develops. Nigeria’s political environment is increasingly polarised ahead of January 2027, and allegations involving corruption agencies, federal money and party defections are likely to become more frequent. Each claim will need to be assessed on evidence rather than campaign rhetoric.

Makinde’s statement nevertheless represents one of his strongest criticisms yet of the Tinubu administration. A governor who helped Tinubu politically in 2023 is now accusing the president’s government of weakening opposition through institutional pressure and warning that Nigeria risks moving toward a system in which electoral competition is reduced before voters even reach the polling units.

The dispute also illustrates how dramatically political alliances can change within a single electoral cycle. Makinde’s support helped create an unusual cross-party coalition around Tinubu in 2023, but the governor now says the expectations behind that cooperation were not fulfilled. His current campaign is built partly around convincing voters that the administration he once supported should now be replaced.

For the electorate, the competing claims create a need for careful scrutiny. Makinde’s accusations should be examined for supporting evidence, while federal institutions should be expected to demonstrate that their actions are independent of partisan objectives. Neither government denials nor opposition allegations should be accepted automatically without verification.

Ultimately, the issue extends beyond Makinde and Tinubu personally. The credibility of Nigeria’s democracy depends on whether opposition parties can organise and compete freely, whether anti-corruption agencies can investigate wrongdoing without political interference and whether federal resources are administered according to law rather than party loyalty.

Makinde says those principles are now under pressure. The Tinubu administration and the APC dispute that broader characterisation and have consistently maintained that politicians joining the ruling party do so voluntarily. The evidence surrounding individual cases will therefore remain critical as the 2027 campaign develops.

For now, the most accurate account is not that Tinubu withheld federal money from Oyo to force Makinde into the APC, but that Makinde alleges the administration is using EFCC investigations and financial scrutiny as political leverage against opposition governors. At the same time, he has rejected claims that federal money received by Oyo represents a special personal favour from Tinubu, insisting that constitutional allocations and legitimate government funding cannot be converted into a political debt requiring loyalty to the ruling party.