Nigeria’s anti-corruption war must remain firmly rooted in constitutionalism, fairness, and respect for human dignity. No matter how influential, controversial, or politically exposed a suspect may be, state institutions must never abandon the rule of law in the name of prosecution. The recent reports surrounding the treatment of Mallam Nasiru El-Rufai by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) raise serious concerns that deserve careful national attention.
Allegations of food deprivation, denial of access to medical care, and refusal to comply with an express court order allowing doctors to attend to him, if true, are disturbing developments that strike at the heart of constitutional democracy. The issue here is not whether El-Rufai should be investigated or prosecuted. No public official is above the law, and anti-corruption agencies have both constitutional and moral obligations to investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing wherever they may arise.
However, the fight against corruption must itself be lawful. Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees every accused person the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court of law. That principle is not a technicality designed to shield suspects from scrutiny; it is a fundamental safeguard against abuse of power. Once investigative agencies begin to act as though accusation is equivalent to conviction, the justice system itself becomes endangered.
The legitimacy of any prosecution depends not only on the allegations involved but also on the fairness of the methods employed. Evidence gathered through intimidation, degrading treatment, or disregard of court orders ultimately weakens the moral authority of the prosecution. More dangerously, it creates public suspicion that the process may be motivated by factors beyond law enforcement.
This is why the ICPC Chairman must exercise extreme caution at this critical moment. The Commission has, over the years, built a reputation as one of Nigeria’s important anti-graft institutions. That credibility should not be compromised by any perception that the agency is being drawn into political battles or deployed as an instrument in a proxy war between rival interests.
Nigeria’s political environment is already heavily polarized. In such an atmosphere, anti-corruption agencies must go beyond merely acting lawfully; they must also appear impartial, restrained, and professionally detached from political hostilities. Public confidence in the anti-corruption fight depends substantially on the perception that investigations are driven by evidence rather than political calculations.
Equally troubling is the allegation that an express order of court may have been disregarded. In every constitutional democracy, obedience to court orders is non-negotiable. Law enforcement agencies cannot demand respect for the law while simultaneously treating judicial directives as optional. The erosion of respect for court orders by state institutions creates a dangerous culture of institutional impunity.
It is possible to prosecute corruption rigorously without violating constitutional rights. In fact, that is precisely what distinguishes democratic justice from political persecution. Strong institutions are not measured by how harshly they treat suspects, but by how faithfully they uphold the law even in politically sensitive cases.
The Nigerian public must therefore insist on two things at once: accountability for corruption where evidence exists, and strict adherence to due process in the conduct of investigations and prosecutions. Those principles are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually reinforcing.
Justice loses credibility the moment it abandons the rule of law.
- Mr Abdulkadir, Esq is a legal consultant and can be reached at [email protected]
