Abdurahman Tonga
The strength of any democracy is tested not when the law is applied to the weak, but when it is applied to the powerful. For decades, Nigerians have lamented a culture of impunity in which public office was often perceived as a shield against accountability. Today, the Federal Government’s prosecution of former Kaduna State Governor, Mallam Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, represents an opportunity to demonstrate that the era of selective justice is giving way to one governed by the rule of law.
Predictably, the case has generated intense political debate. Supporters of the former governor have framed the prosecution as persecution, while critics insist it is long overdue. However, the courtroom is not a political rally, and justice cannot be determined by popularity or public sympathy. It must be determined by evidence and the law.
The proceedings surrounding the defendant’s application for bail underscore precisely why the Federal Government’s prosecution deserves public confidence. The prosecution did not merely oppose the application; it presented legal arguments challenging the basis of the request. It pointed to the history of previous bail applications and questioned why the medical condition now being relied upon had not featured in earlier proceedings. Whether those arguments ultimately succeed is for the court to decide, but they reflect the responsibility of every prosecutor to rigorously test the claims placed before the court. That is not vindictiveness. It is diligent prosecution.
Far too often, public discourse assumes that whenever a prominent individual faces criminal proceedings, the state should simply accept every explanation advanced by the defence. That is not how justice works. A prosecutor’s constitutional duty is not to secure convictions at all costs, but neither is it to surrender its case whenever a defendant invokes sympathy or public stature. Its duty is to ensure that the court has every relevant fact necessary to make an informed judicial decision.
The Federal Government, acting through the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), is therefore entitled and indeed obligated to scrutinise every application before the court. If prosecutors genuinely believe that an application lacks merit or raises questions requiring judicial examination, they would be failing in their public duty if they remained silent.
The significance of this case extends far beyond one individual. It sends a message to every current and former public office holder that occupying high office does not place anyone beyond legal scrutiny. For too long, Nigerians have demanded accountability from those entrusted with public resources. That demand cannot suddenly disappear simply because the accused is influential or politically connected.
It is equally important to remember that prosecution is not persecution. Charging an individual before a competent court is not a declaration of guilt. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove every allegation beyond reasonable doubt, while the defendant retains the constitutional presumption of innocence and every opportunity to challenge the evidence. This balance is precisely what distinguishes a constitutional democracy from arbitrary governance.
Critics who portray every anti-corruption prosecution as political risk undermining the very institutions they claim to defend. If every case involving a former governor, minister or senior public official is dismissed as persecution before the evidence is heard, then accountability itself becomes impossible. Such an approach would effectively grant permanent immunity to those who once wielded public power.
The Federal Government deserves support not because every prosecution must end in conviction, but because enforcing the law without regard to political status is an essential responsibility of the state. Anti-corruption institutions cannot fulfil their constitutional mandate if they are expected to retreat whenever a politically prominent defendant is brought before the courts.
Ultimately, the only verdict that matters is the one delivered by the court after a fair trial. Until then, Nigerians should resist attempts to litigate the case through headlines, social media campaigns or partisan rhetoric. The proper place for determining the strength of the prosecution’s case—and the credibility of the defence—is the courtroom.
A nation committed to justice cannot demand accountability only for the powerless while exempting the powerful. If Nigeria is serious about strengthening the rule of law, then it must also support the institutions tasked with enforcing it. The Federal Government’s decision to pursue allegations through the courts, rather than through political pronouncements, reinforces an enduring democratic principle: no public office, no political influence, and no personal stature should ever place anyone above the law.
Abdurahman Tonga Writes from No 19 College Road, Ungwan Dosa Kaduna