The unfolding tension between and the has sparked renewed debate about power, persecution, and the direction of Nigeria’s democracy under .
When a Team Manager Becomes the Referee
In any democracy, anti-corruption agencies are meant to be neutral umpires — not political instruments. But when investigations appear selective, timing becomes suspicious, and targets are largely opposition figures or dissenting voices, questions naturally arise.
El-Rufai, once a prominent APC insider and ally within the ruling establishment, now finds himself at odds with the same political structure he once defended. Critics argue that when internal party disagreements evolve into prosecutorial pressure, it begins to resemble a scenario where the “team manager” is also acting as the referee — setting the rules, enforcing them, and determining who gets penalized. The concern is not whether corruption should be investigated — it must be. The real issue is whether investigations are:
- Consistent across party lines
- Transparent and evidence-driven
- Free from executive influence
Selective justice erodes public trust faster than open impunity.
The One-Party State Anxiety
Nigeria’s democratic strength lies in competitive pluralism. However, growing allegations of intimidation, strategic defections, pressure on opposition governors, and legal battles targeting dissenters have fueled fears of a creeping one-party dominance.
When opposition figures face relentless institutional heat while ruling party loyalists appear insulated, citizens begin to question whether political consolidation — rather than accountability — is the underlying objective.
Historically, democracies weaken not through military coups alone, but through gradual institutional capture — when:
- Anti-corruption bodies lose operational independence
- Legislative oversight becomes compliant
- Judicial processes appear politicized
- Opposition space shrinks
The fear expressed by many observers is that aggressive political centralization under the guise of reform may narrow democratic competition ahead of future elections.
Power, Legitimacy, and Perception
President Tinubu’s critics argue that legitimacy concerns from the 2023 election disputes still cast a long shadow over his administration. In such an environment, forceful consolidation of power — whether through party machinery or state institutions — is interpreted not as strength, but insecurity.
However, supporters of the president maintain that anti-corruption enforcement should not stop simply because the accused holds political influence. They argue that no one is above the law — including former governors.
This is where the credibility test lies:
If investigations are institutional and evidence-based, they will stand judicial scrutiny.
If they are political, history will record them as instruments of suppression.
Democracy at a Crossroads
Nigeria’s democracy does not suffer from too much opposition — it suffers from too little institutional independence. The true test is not whether El-Rufai is investigated, but whether:
- All political actors are equally accountable
- Agencies act without executive intimidation
- Opposition voices can operate without fear
A one-party system rarely emerges overnight. It grows gradually when power becomes allergic to competition.
In the end, democracy survives not by silencing rivals, but by strengthening institutions strong enough to hold everyone — president, governor, or opposition figure — accountable under the same rule of law.
