Selective Justice in Nigeria: Why the ADC’s Stand Against Partisan Prosecution Matters
In a modern democracy, the rule of law and the equal application of justice are foundational principles that distinguish governed societies from authoritarian rule. Yet, in recent weeks, Nigeria has witnessed a highly charged debate over what many political commentators, parties, and citizens are calling “selective justice” — a practice where legal actions appear to target political opponents while members of the ruling administration evade similar scrutiny.
At the centre of this controversy are two prominent figures now facing legal scrutiny: former Kaduna State Governor Nasir el-Rufai and former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN. Both men are members of the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC), and their ongoing prosecutions have ignited fierce debate about whether the federal government is applying legal standards fairly across political lines.
What Is Selective Justice — And Why It’s a Threat to Democracy
“Selective justice” occurs when legal systems are allegedly used as tools of political suppression — where individuals are prosecuted not based on impartial application of laws, but due to their political alignment, influence, or opposition to those in power. In an ideal constitutional democracy, justice should be blind and equal for all; where citizens, regardless of their political connections, must face the legal consequences of their actions or benefit from due process when innocent.
In the case of Nigeria, critics argue that prosecution has increasingly appeared to be driven by the political identity of the accused rather than by transparent evidence and legal principles. This is a dangerous perception because it threatens the legitimacy of anti-corruption efforts, undermines confidence in judicial institutions, and erodes the democratic fabric of the nation.
It’s not only the ADC raising alarms. Opposition politicians from multiple parties, including former vice-presidential candidate Peter Obi, former PDP chairman David Mark, and PDP elder Bode George, have issued statements warning that anti-corruption agencies and law enforcement are being weaponized against political adversaries of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). Their concern: the focus of state power increasingly appears to systematically weaken opposition figures rather than genuinely fight corruption across the board.
The ADC’s Objection: A Call for Fair Application of the Law
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has formally criticised the federal government’s handling of the Malami and El-Rufai cases, arguing that justice must be administered evenly and transparently, not selectively. ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, emphasised that despite strong allegations against their members, no citizen — including El-Rufai and Malami — should be treated differently because of political differences.
According to the ADC’s statement, the party has observed a contrast between how these high-profile cases are being processed compared with other legal matters — such as cases of passport forgery and international conspiracy where the accused were granted bail and the court proceedings scheduled at a normal pace. The implication, they argue, is that while some individuals receive due process, others experience extended custody, inter-agency transfers without clear legal progression, and an apparent rush to detain rather than investigate.
The ADC also underscored the constitutional presumption of innocence — that any person charged with an offence remains innocent until proven guilty in a competent court of law. This legal principle is fundamental to democratic jurisprudence and is central to the party’s appeal for a fair and unbiased process for both El-Rufai and Malami.
The Cases at the Heart of the Controversy
Abubakar Malami: Malami was arraigned at the Federal High Court in Abuja on multiple counts of conspiracy, disguising proceeds of unlawful activities, and money laundering related to alleged mismanagement of government funds. Alongside him, his wife and son have also faced charges, with the court remanding them in different correctional facilities while their bail applications are pending.
Supporters of Malami have voiced concern that his prolonged detention, especially prior to the full commencement of trial proceedings or clear evidence presentation, casts doubt on due process and raises questions about whether his rights are being fully protected by the justice system.
Nasir el-Rufai: Former governor el-Rufai voluntarily honoured an anti-graft invitation but was subsequently detained and transferred between multiple enforcement agencies. He has faced allegations including illegal surveillance and alleged financial improprieties from his time as governor. El-Rufai has taken legal action himself, filing a fundamental rights suit claiming unlawful treatment and an invasion of his residence.
Why Opposition Parties Are Raising the Alarm
The issue transcends individual cases. Many political leaders and civil society advocates believe that selective justice is symptomatic of a broader problem: the politicisation of anti-corruption agencies and law enforcement bodies.
Critics argue that when tools designed to safeguard public funds are used to target political opponents while ignoring similar offences by allies of the ruling party, it undermines the integrity of the institutions themselves. In this context, what should be an honest fight against corruption risks being perceived as political vendetta or repression of dissent.
Furthermore, some commentators warn that if unchecked, this pattern could erode Nigeria’s multiparty system and pave the way for a quasi one-party state in which political competition is not decided through elections and ideas, but through legal intimidation and systematic exclusion.
The Bigger Picture: Human Rights, Democracy, and Public Trust
A critical dimension of this debate is the impact on public trust. When citizens perceive the justice system as skewed or politically motivated, they lose faith in its capacity to protect rights impartially. This mistrust can spread to other arms of government, weakening democratic accountability. For a nation as diverse and dynamic as Nigeria, maintaining the independence and fairness of legal institutions is crucial for stability and progress.
The ADC’s call, therefore, is not just about defending two individuals — it is about defending the foundational principles of justice, equality before the law, and the separation of powers that sustain democratic governance.
Conclusion: The Call for True Impartiality
Whether or not one agrees with the merits of the specific allegations against Nasir el-Rufai, Abubakar Malami, or any political figure, the broader question at stake is unmistakable: Can justice truly prevail in a system where its application appears politically selective?
Nigeria’s democracy — like all democracies — depends on its legal institutions functioning impartially, consistently, and transparently. If citizens begin to believe that legal action is wielded as a political weapon, trust in public institutions will continue to erode, and the very fabric of democratic governance will be weakened.
Ultimately, the ADC’s warning against selective justice resonates beyond party lines. It challenges all Nigerians — policymakers, civil society actors, journalists, and ordinary citizens — to demand a justice system that protects rights universally, not strategically; that prosecutes misdemeanours impartially, not politically; and that upholds the rule of law as the cornerstone of a free and fair society.
0 Comments