Reported By Mary Udezue | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
The African Democratic Congress (ADC), a growing opposition party in Nigeria, has escalated its public critique of President Bola Tinubu’s administration, asserting that the government is practicing selective justice in its handling of the high-profile legal cases against two of the party’s senior figures: former Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar Malami and former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai. The party’s allegations, set against a backdrop of heightened political tension ahead of the 2027 general election, centre on perceived inconsistencies in how the Nigerian justice system is applied, particularly for opposition leaders, compared with other legal matters.
The ADC released a detailed statement through its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, on Tuesday in Abuja, saying its monitoring of the ongoing proceedings has led to profound concern about the pace, manner and sequence of enforcement actions involving both Malami and El-Rufai. Although the party stressed that “no citizen, regardless of stature or past office, is above the law,” it criticised rapid inter-agency custody movements and prolonged detention before fully developed prosecutions as inconsistent with the rule of law in a constitutional democracy. The statement argued that such actions risk creating an impression that legal enforcement is being wielded as a political instrument rather than a purely judicial one.
According to the ADC, the movement of the two men from one enforcement agency’s custody to another, while investigations are still in progress, has “understandably raised serious public concern” about fairness and equal treatment under the law. The party’s statement posed a rhetorical question about whether detention has become “an investigative shortcut, or an instrument of pressure to keep these opposition leaders out of circulation.” It stressed that, in democratic practice, detention should follow credible, well-prepared charges and not precede them in a way that could appear as pre-trial punishment.
At the core of the dispute are the very different trajectories the ADC sees between these cases and other high-profile legal matters involving allegations such as passport forgery, international conspiracy and impersonation. In those cases, the ADC noted, accused individuals were granted bail after pleading not guilty and the matters continued through the courts without prolonged custodial oscillations. The ADC reiterated that Malami and El-Rufai, as Nigerian citizens, are entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence and should be treated accordingly, with full transparency and due process.
The legal challenges facing both Malami and El-Rufai are distinct in origin and substance but have converged politically in the ADC’s narrative of selective enforcement. Malami, a senior lawyer and former minister, was arraigned in federal court in Abuja alongside his wife and son on multi-count charges — including conspiracy, money laundering and concealment of proceeds of unlawful activities involving large sums of money — that he has vehemently denied. The court ordered that Malami and his son remain in custody at Kuje Correctional Centre while his wife was remanded at Suleja, pending bail hearings scheduled for early March 2026.
El-Rufai’s legal entanglement began after a televised interview in early February, during which he admitted to unlawfully intercepting communications involving the National Security Adviser. That admission drew intensified scrutiny from multiple enforcement agencies. He first honoured an invitation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and was held for several days before being transferred to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). The Department of State Services (DSS) also announced its involvement in the ongoing investigation, and operatives reportedly conducted a search of his Abuja residence. His legal team has filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit against the ICPC, alleging a breach of protocol in the search operations, with the matter adjourned to a later date after procedural issues.
The ADC’s public defence does not contest the legitimacy of legal proceedings against Malami or El-Rufai; rather, it calls for transparent prosecution and strict adherence to procedural safeguards. Abdullahi’s statement urged authorities to present evidence before competent courts and allow justice to follow its course, without political calculation or apparent executive influence. The party has also demanded immediate public clarification from enforcement agencies on the precise status of investigations and a clear timeline for prosecution, asserting that a credible justice system must not operate in a manner that could erode public confidence or be perceived as biased against opposition figures.
Within Nigerian political discourse, accusations of selective justice are not new. Opposition parties and civil society groups have long expressed concern that state institutions, including anticorruption agencies, may be influenced by political considerations. The ADC’s statements follow earlier criticism from within its ranks, such as a February 18 comment by the party’s Assistant National Youth Leader accusing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission of politically motivated prosecutions aimed at weakening the ADC’s influence. That statement framed the actions against Malami and El-Rufai as part of a broader attempt to undermine the party’s challenge to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
Reaction across Nigeria’s political spectrum has been mixed. Supporters of the ADC’s position argue that equal application of the law is essential for democratic legitimacy and that any perception of bias in high-profile cases damages both public trust and the integrity of state institutions. Some civil liberties advocates have echoed these concerns, emphasising that pre-trial detention and frequent transfers between enforcement agencies can resemble punitive measures rather than necessary investigatory steps, especially for individuals not formally convicted of any offence.
Conversely, defenders of the government argue that the legal actions against Malami and El-Rufai stem from serious allegations that require vigorous investigation and prosecution. They posit that enforcement agencies operate within legal frameworks and that judicial decisions — including remand orders — are under the jurisdiction of the courts and not dictated by the executive branch. These voices caution against interpreting routine law enforcement procedures as politically motivated without substantive evidence.
The wider implications of the ADC’s critique extend beyond the immediate cases. As Nigeria approaches future elections, debates over the impartiality of judicial processes are likely to intensify, shaping perceptions of electoral fairness and institutional integrity. The ADC’s assertion that justice must be applied without political mathematics resonates with concerns about the rule of law, accountability and the separation of powers — key pillars in democratic governance that many Nigerians view as pivotal to the country’s stability and progress.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments