In Nigeria’s fight against corruption, consistency and fairness are paramount. When a leader is caught on camera stuffing wads of dollar bills into his pockets, one would expect swift justice. Yet, Abdullahi Ganduje, the former Governor of Kano State, continues to walk free despite overwhelming evidence of corruption. This raises serious concerns about the integrity of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and whether it is truly serving as an unbiased, law-enforcing agency or merely as a tool for political persecution.
The Ganduje Scandal: Caught on Camera
The scandal involving Abdullahi Ganduje is nothing short of shocking. In a series of videos released in 2018, Ganduje was seen allegedly receiving bribes from contractors. The footage showed him calmly collecting the money, smiling, and stuffing the bills into his flowing white agbada. These videos, which circulated widely on social media, left little to the imagination. The former governor was allegedly caught red-handed engaging in corrupt practices—an act that, under any legal system, would necessitate immediate investigation and prosecution.
However, Ganduje’s response was as audacious as it was predictable. He denied the authenticity of the videos, claiming they were doctored by his political opponents. Despite his feeble defense, the evidence was compelling enough for an independent, unbiased institution to take action. But what followed was a disturbing silence from the EFCC, the very agency tasked with combating corruption in Nigeria.
EFCC’s Deafening Silence on Ganduje
The EFCC’s lack of action in the Ganduje case is troubling. While the commission has a mandate to investigate and prosecute corruption cases without fear or favor, its inaction regarding Ganduje suggests otherwise. This is not just a case of oversight; it appears to be a deliberate decision to avoid holding Ganduje accountable for his actions. The question that arises is, why?
Several reasons could explain this. One possibility is political protection. As a former governor with significant influence within the ruling party, Ganduje might be shielded by powerful allies. Another reason could be the EFCC’s selective approach to justice—where it only pursues cases that serve certain interests, while ignoring those that do not align with its agenda.
This selective justice is not just an allegation but a pattern that has emerged over time. The EFCC has often been accused of going after individuals who are out of favor with the current administration, while turning a blind eye to those who are well-connected. This raises serious concerns about the EFCC’s credibility and whether it is truly independent or just another arm of the government used to settle political scores.
Yahaya Bello: A Different Standard
In stark contrast to the Ganduje case, the EFCC has shown an unusual zeal in pursuing Yahaya Bello, the former Governor of Kogi State. Bello, who is currently facing charges of money laundering and misappropriation of public funds, has been declared a fugitive by the EFCC. The commission has made several attempts to arrest him and has issued statements declaring him wanted.
While it is not the intention to defend any alleged wrongdoing by Bello, it is worth questioning why the EFCC is so aggressive in this case while remaining silent on Ganduje. Is it because Bello is no longer in the good graces of those in power, or is it because the EFCC is more interested in making a public spectacle out of some cases while conveniently ignoring others?
The EFCC’s approach in Bello’s case suggests that the commission is more interested in playing to the gallery than in ensuring justice. By declaring Bello a fugitive and launching a public campaign against him, the EFCC seems more concerned with winning in the court of public opinion than in securing a fair trial. This raises the issue of whether the EFCC is acting as a prosecution, judge, and jury all at once, rather than allowing the legal process to unfold as it should.
The Legal Concerns
The EFCC’s actions raise several legal questions, particularly regarding its adherence to the principles of justice. According to Section 36(5) of the Nigerian Constitution, every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This principle is a cornerstone of any fair legal system, yet the EFCC’s public declarations seem to undermine it. By labeling Bello a fugitive and making inflammatory statements, the EFCC is effectively bypassing the legal process and prejudicing the case before it even goes to trial.
Furthermore, Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution stipulates that only the judiciary has the power to enforce the law. The EFCC’s public posturing and media tactics appear to be an attempt to usurp this power, creating an atmosphere of bias that could jeopardize any future legal proceedings. This not only undermines the rule of law but also erodes public confidence in the EFCC as an impartial institution.
The EFCC must also consider Section 34(1) of the Constitution, which protects citizens from degrading treatment. The commission’s actions in the Bello case, particularly its public declarations and the media frenzy it has stirred up, could be seen as a form of public humiliation—something that the Constitution explicitly prohibits.
The Need for Reform
The EFCC’s handling of the Ganduje and Bello cases highlights the urgent need for reform within the commission. For too long, the EFCC has operated with a level of discretion that has allowed it to pursue cases selectively, often based on political considerations rather than legal merit. This has led to a situation where the EFCC is seen not as a neutral enforcer of the law, but as a tool for political manipulation.
To restore its credibility, the EFCC must commit to a consistent and impartial application of the law. This means pursuing all cases of corruption with equal vigor, regardless of the political affiliations or status of the individuals involved. It also means respecting the legal process and refraining from actions that could be seen as prejudicial or biased.
In conclusion, the EFCC’s current approach is not only damaging to the individuals involved but also to Nigeria’s broader fight against corruption. By allowing figures like Ganduje to escape justice while aggressively pursuing others like Bello, the EFCC is sending a message that corruption will only be punished when it is politically convenient. This is not the way to build a fair and just society, and it is certainly not the way to win the war against corruption. The EFCC must do better—Nigeria deserves better.
