APC Chieftain Warned Me Against 2027 Presidential Bid Before EFCC Probe – Makinde Alleges

Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, has alleged that a prominent chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) warned him not to contest the 2027 presidential election against President Bola Tinubu, shortly before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) sought extensive financial records from his administration.

The governor made the allegation in his July 2026 monthly newsletter while reacting to the judgment delivered on Wednesday by the Federal High Court in Ibadan, which restrained the EFCC from proceeding with certain aspects of its planned investigation into the finances of the Oyo State Government.

According to Makinde, the warning came on June 1, 2025, shortly after President Tinubu was endorsed by the APC as its sole presidential candidate for the 2027 general election.

He claimed that barely 24 hours after receiving the warning, the EFCC wrote to the Oyo State Government requesting detailed records of all contracts awarded and payments made to contractors from 2021 onward, without identifying any contractor, company, transaction or specific allegation of wrongdoing.

“An APC chieftain warned me on June 1, 2025, against contesting the 2027 presidential election after President Bola Tinubu was endorsed as the APC’s sole candidate.

“A day after the warning, the EFCC requested copies of all Oyo State Government contracts and payments to contractors from 2021, without identifying any contractor, company, transaction or alleged offence,” Makinde stated.

Court Rules EFCC Must Follow Due Process

The Federal High Court delivered its judgment in suit number FHC/IB/CS/61/2025, filed by the Oyo State Government against the anti-graft agency.

In a statement issued by Makinde’s Special Adviser on Media, Sulaimon Olarenwaju, the court acknowledged the EFCC’s constitutional authority to investigate financial crimes but emphasized that such powers must be exercised in line with the Constitution and the rule of law.

According to the statement, the court held that the EFCC’s request, as contained in its June 2, 2025 letter to the Oyo State Government, was too broad and amounted to what it described as a “fishing expedition.”

The court further ruled that the constitutional rights of the state government to fair hearing could not be infringed under the guise of an investigation.

Makinde Says Government Never Blocked Investigation

Makinde insisted that his administration never attempted to obstruct the EFCC from carrying out any legitimate investigation.

Instead, he explained that the state government merely requested that the commission specify the contractors, transactions or allegations under investigation so that the appropriate documents could be provided.

According to him, the EFCC failed to respond to that request, leaving the government with no option but to approach the court for clarification on whether such a sweeping demand complied with constitutional provisions.

He noted that the court affirmed the EFCC’s powers to investigate financial crimes but stressed that such investigations must be based on identifiable allegations and conducted within legal boundaries.

‘Accountability Must Be Evidence-Based’

Reacting to the judgment, Makinde said he would not speculate about the timing of the EFCC’s letter following the political warning he allegedly received, adding that Nigerians were free to draw their own conclusions.

The governor maintained that his administration fully supports transparency and accountability, stressing that no government should be immune from investigation.

However, he argued that anti-corruption investigations must be evidence-driven rather than broad exercises aimed at uncovering possible wrongdoing without any defined allegation.

“Accountability must be evidence-based,” he stated, warning against investigations launched without specific facts or identifiable offences.

Makinde described the court’s decision as “a victory for the rule of law, not against the EFCC,” adding that the judgment reaffirmed the principle that all government institutions, including law enforcement agencies, must operate within constitutional and legal limits.

He concluded that the ruling highlights the importance of leadership founded on due process, constitutionalism and respect for the rule of law.