Nigeria’s political landscape has been stirred by fresh controversy following allegations from the African Democratic Congress (ADC) that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is targeting opposition figures while overlooking members of the ruling party.

The accusations emerged after the reported arrest and detention of former Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar Malami and former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai.

Speaking during an interview on ARISE Television, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, raised concerns over what he described as selective enforcement by anti-corruption agencies.

Aiyedatiwa vs Tunji-Ojo: Political Cold War Rocks Ondo APC

According to Abdullahi, institutions designed to combat corruption appear to show heightened efficiency when dealing with figures aligned with the opposition. He argued that such a pattern risks undermining public trust in Nigeria’s anti-graft framework.

EFCC Efficiency Under Scrutiny

Abdullahi pointed to both the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission as publicly funded institutions mandated to investigate and prosecute corruption cases.

He questioned why, in his view, their visible effectiveness seems more pronounced when opposition politicians are involved. The ADC spokesman warned that this perception could weaken confidence in the independence of these bodies.

The party alleged that individuals within the ruling All Progressives Congress who have previously faced investigations or court cases appear to receive less scrutiny once aligned with the government. Abdullahi suggested that such developments create an impression of double standards.

However, he clarified that the ADC is not asserting the innocence or guilt of Malami or El-Rufai. Instead, he emphasized that the party’s position centers on institutional credibility and fairness in law enforcement processes.

Political analysts note that allegations of selective prosecution have surfaced periodically in Nigeria’s democratic history. Anti-corruption agencies have often defended their operations, stating that investigations are evidence-driven and not politically motivated.

The EFCC, established to tackle financial crimes, has prosecuted high-profile figures across party lines in the past. Nonetheless, opposition parties frequently argue that timing and intensity of investigations can coincide with political realignments.

The debate over institutional neutrality comes at a time when Nigeria continues efforts to strengthen governance and transparency. Observers say public confidence in anti-corruption institutions is crucial for democratic stability and economic growth.

While no official statement has yet been issued by the EFCC regarding the ADC’s latest claims, the controversy is expected to fuel broader discussions about accountability and political balance.

As Nigeria navigates this renewed debate, the spotlight remains firmly on the integrity and independence of its anti-corruption framework. The unfolding developments may test not only the credibility of investigative agencies but also the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of political rivalry.

For now, the allegations mark another chapter in the evolving discourse on governance, justice, and opposition politics within Africa’s largest democracy.