Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Former Kaduna Central lawmaker Senator Shehu Sani has sparked renewed debate about political accountability in Nigeria by publicly asserting that alleged “cabals” associated with the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari were widely blamed for governance failures during their tenure, yet none of those individuals has faced prosecution or asset seizures. Sani made the remarks in a recent post on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account, where he wrote, “The Buhari cabals are blamed for everything that happened during their time, and no cabalian is in any correctional facility, nor have their containers been seized.” This comment reflects a broader criticism of entrenched impunity among politically exposed figures in Nigeria’s modern political landscape.
The term “cabals” in Nigerian political discourse typically refers to informal groups of influencers or power brokers believed to wield considerable sway over government decision‑making behind the scenes. During the Buhari era, accusations of cabal influence surfaced repeatedly in public debate, with critics arguing that such networks undermined formal institutions and contributed to policy missteps, particularly in areas like security, corruption and economic management. Buhari himself, while rejecting the idea of being controlled by a cabal, acknowledged the possibility of critics perceiving undue influence by certain officials or aides.
Sani’s recent remarks touch on a sensitive and unresolved issue in Nigerian politics — the challenge of translating public scrutiny into formal legal accountability. His assertion underscores the perception that influential individuals believed by many to have operated outside ethical boundaries during Buhari’s administration remain untouched by the criminal justice system. By pointing to the absence of prosecutions or asset seizures (“containers seized”), Sani is signalling what he sees as a gap between widespread public criticism and tangible legal consequences for powerful figures implicated in alleged wrongdoing.
Political analysts say Sani’s comments resonate with long‑standing frustrations among Nigerians over the perceived immunity enjoyed by politically exposed persons, who often evade prosecution due to legal, institutional or political barriers. Critics of successive governments argue that anti‑corruption efforts have frequently been selective or uneven, with high‑profile cases sometimes stalling in courts or resulting in non‑custodial outcomes. These sentiments are compounded by the reality that many senior officials and aides who served in previous administrations continue to enjoy freedom and influence long after leaving office.
Supporters of stronger accountability measures contend that institutional weaknesses and political interference have often stalled investigations and prosecutions of major corruption allegations. They argue that to build public confidence in the rule of law, there must be transparent investigations and legal action where evidence of wrongdoing exists, regardless of an individual’s political connections or status.
Opponents of Sani’s framing caution that terms like “cabals” are inherently vague and politically charged, making it difficult to base legal action on broad allegations without specific evidence of criminal conduct. Legal experts emphasise that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, prosecutions must be anchored in admissible proof rather than perception or rhetoric. They note that the law requires clear evidence before charges can be brought, and that impugning individuals without substantiation can itself raise issues of defamation and due process.
Sani, a longtime critic of political corruption and a vocal advocate for justice reforms, has a history of challenging established power structures and highlighting inconsistencies in how anti‑graft agencies operate. His commentary often draws attention to the gap between Nigeria’s legal frameworks for combating corruption and the practical realities of enforcement.
The debate over accountability for alleged “cabals” is part of a broader national conversation about governance, transparency and the effectiveness of Nigeria’s anti‑corruption architecture. Although anti‑graft agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) have prosecuted a range of cases in recent years, critics maintain that politically powerful individuals still evade full judicial scrutiny.
Shehu Sani’s statement thus brings these longstanding concerns back into the spotlight, prompting renewed discussion about how Nigeria can balance public expectations of justice with the stringent legal standards required to prosecute high‑profile figures. Whether his comments will spur renewed efforts at legal reform or further public debate remains to be seen.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments