By ALO360 Editorial Board
In every democracy, the fight against corruption must be firm, consistent, and impartial. It must not only be just, but it must be seen to be just. When prosecution appears selective, public trust begins to erode. And in politics, perception often becomes reality.
Nigeria now faces that perception challenge in the cases involving former Kaduna governor Nasir El-Rufai and former attorney-general of the federation Abubakar Malami.
We do not argue that either man is innocent or guilty as charged; the courts must determine guilt or innocence. However, the timing, sequence, and political context surrounding their prosecution raise legitimate questions about public perception.
From Power Brokers to Opposition Figures
El-Rufai governed Kaduna State for eight years and played a visible role in national politics. He campaigned vigorously for the election of President Bola Tinubu in the build-up to the 2023 presidential elections.
The ex-Kaduna governor, as of public record, accompanied Tinubu to Chatham House in the United Kingdom (UK), where he took and answered questions on behalf of the president on the revered global platform.
When Tinubu met with the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) in Kaduna state during his campaign, he had told El-Rufai not to run away after serving his tenure as governor, insisting that the former governor still has service to render to the country.
After President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office, El-Rufai was nominated for a ministerial position. However, the Senate withheld his confirmation, citing security concerns.
That rejection marked a turning point as the presidency did not do much to secure his confirmation. He must have felt betrayed, though at a different media chat, El-Rufai had maintained that his fight with Tinubu is not due to his rejection as a minister, but a fight to save Nigerians from misgovernance.
A few years into Tinubu’s administration, El-Rufai publicly distanced himself from the presidency and eventually parted ways with Tinubu. As they say, in politics, there is no permanent enemy, just permanent interest. He later joined the Social Democratic Party (SDP) before pitching his tent with the opposition coalition, the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Malami followed a similar trajectory. After serving as attorney-general from 2015 to 2023, he also left the ruling fold. He joined the ADC and is widely reported to be positioning himself to contest the Kebbi State governorship.
In other words, both men transitioned from ruling party insiders to opposition figures.
It is against this backdrop that their legal troubles intensified.
The Escalation of Charges
In El-Rufai’s case, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) detained him over alleged financial misappropriation linked to his tenure as governor. He denied wrongdoing.
He was later granted administrative bail. However, immediately after his release on February 18, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) took him into custody in connection with separate investigations.
In 2024, the Kaduna assembly indicted el-Rufai over the alleged diversion of N423 billion in public funds and money laundering and demanded that he be investigated by anti-graft agencies.
The State Security Service (SSS) has also filed a three-count charge against him for alleged cybercrime and breach of national security. The charges relate to claims that he admitted, during an interview on Arise TV, to involvement in the interception of the phone communications of National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu.
Meanwhile, Malami is facing prosecution over alleged financial misappropriation and terrorism financing during his tenure as attorney-general. He has denied all allegations.
The rapid succession of investigations and charges against both men has drawn public attention.
The Question of Timing
The critical issue is not whether investigations should occur. Public officials must answer for their stewardship.
However, many Nigerians are asking why these matters gained urgency only after both men left the ruling structure and joined the opposition.
For the record, it is in this country that a member of the ruling APC said that “once you join APC, your sins are forgiven”, and the ruling party has not failed in this regard. Every available evidence and the body language of the anti-graft agencies show that those in the ruling party are sacred cows.
If El-Rufai had remained within the inner circle of power, would the sequence of detentions and charges have unfolded in the same manner?
If Malami had not aligned with the ADC and signalled interest in contesting Kebbi governorship, would his legal exposure have accelerated?
These questions persist because the timing overlaps conspicuously with their political realignment.
The Optics of Enforcement
The optics matter. Detention by one agency followed by immediate custody by another. Administrative bail followed by fresh charges. National security allegations layered onto corruption claims. Each step may be legally defensible. Yet the combined effect creates an impression of coordinated pressure.
When enforcement appears cumulative and relentless, it risks being interpreted as punitive rather than procedural.
That perception, fair or not, shapes public opinion.
Why This Matters
Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions must operate above political suspicion. If enforcement appears harsher for opposition figures and more restrained toward ruling party loyalists, institutional credibility suffers. Selective justice undermines the very anti-graft agenda it seeks to advance.
If El-Rufai and Malami committed offences, they must face trial. The rule of law demands no less. However, accountability must be even-handed.
Justice must not appear to change with party membership.
Beyond Two Men
Ultimately, this moment is larger than El-Rufai or Malami. It is about the integrity of institutions and the confidence of citizens.
When prosecutions align too neatly with political fallout, the line between accountability and political retaliation blurs.
Nigeria cannot afford that blur.
The fight against corruption must be impartial, consistent and transparent. Otherwise, even legitimate prosecutions risk being dismissed as political witch-hunts.
And once that perception settles, rebuilding trust becomes far more difficult than securing any conviction.