By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
Justice is expected to be blind to status, power and political affiliation. But when the timing of a law enforcement act appears to advantage one political interest over another, a harder question arises. Can justice be substantively impartial and yet appear partisan?
That question has taken on unusual significance following the decision of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to obtain a court order, on August 5, 2026, freezing accounts belonging to the Osun State Government over allegations concerning state funds, days before the state’s governorship election.
Ordinarily, there would be nothing controversial about an anti-corruption agency approaching a court in pursuit of its mandate; the EFCC would be failing in its duty if political considerations stayed its hand whenever credible grounds for investigation existed.
But this was no ordinary moment. Osun was days from a governorship election, with Governor Ademola Adeleke seeking another term against an APC determined to take the state for the Federal Government it controls.
Against that combustible backdrop, a federal agency moved to freeze the accounts of an opposition-controlled state government. Whatever the legal merits, questions about timing and neutrality were inevitable. And they came.
Perhaps the most consequential criticism came from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu himself, who directed the EFCC to return to court and vacate the order. He was not embarrassed that the EFCC was exercising a mandate backed by a court order, but “deeply embarrassed” by its timing.
His concern was that nothing should be done so close to the election that could create the impression of a Federal Government agency interfering with the electoral process. That is precisely the point.
In public administration, perception matters; in the administration of justice, it matters even more. Where institutions regularly investigate politically exposed persons, perception can become as consequential as action itself.
The issue, then, is not simply whether the EFCC possessed the legal authority to act, but whether the circumstances and timing of its action created the appearance of partisan justice.
Something may be lawful and still unwise: an agency may hold the power to act, yet exercise it at a moment that needlessly invites allegations of manipulation. Democratic institutions survive not merely on the powers granted by law, but on public confidence.
The EFCC occupies an especially sensitive position in Nigeria’s political history. Since its establishment, successive administrations have faced allegations that anti-corruption institutions were selectively deployed against political opponents. Some allegations may be exaggerated, others politically motivated, and crying persecution cannot become a shield against legitimate scrutiny. But such perceptions impose an additional responsibility: the EFCC must not merely act lawfully; it must be seen to act impartially, and that responsibility grows heavier during elections.
Consider a simple reversal. Had an opposition-led Federal Government frozen the accounts of a state run by its principal rival, days before an election, would that government’s supporters have called it routine law enforcement? Almost certainly not. Neutrality cannot depend on whose ox is gored; the standard must hold whether the affected government belongs to the APC, PDP, Accord or any other party.
Yet there is an equally important danger on the other side. Elections cannot become immunity from investigation. If agencies suspended investigations whenever elections approached, politically exposed persons could weaponise the calendar against accountability; an election does not legalise corruption, nor does candidacy confer immunity from it.
Human Rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN) has warned against halting investigations merely because elections are near, and he has a point: the EFCC cannot consult the electoral timetable before investigating every suspected financial crime.
But there is a distinction between investigating wrongdoing and taking an extraordinary action capable of affecting a government’s functioning immediately before an election.
Freezing a state government’s accounts touches salaries, services and the machinery of government, so proportionality cannot be avoided. Was there imminent danger the funds would disappear? Was action on August 5 mandatory, or could less disruptive measures have preserved the funds or the evidence without generating the perception of political interference?
These questions do not undermine the fight against corruption; they strengthen it, since an institution deprived of public confidence eventually loses one of its most important weapons: legitimacy.
President Tinubu’s intervention introduces its own complication. If the EFCC’s timing raises questions about institutional judgement, a President directing it to reverse course raises questions about institutional independence.
Many Nigerians may applaud Tinubu for stepping in, but should an independent institution need presidential correction, and what precedent does that set for the next politically inconvenient EFCC action?
A President who intervenes today to protect electoral integrity sets an authority another could invoke tomorrow to protect an ally. Strong institutions should not depend on presidential benevolence; the better safeguard is independence paired with sound institutional judgement.
That is the deeper lesson from Osun. Nigeria needs an EFCC strong enough to investigate anybody: governors, ministers, presidential allies, opposition leaders, party financiers, public servants. Nobody should be beyond legitimate investigation.
But it equally needs an EFCC conscious enough of its own reputation to understand that the manner, timing and proportionality of its actions can strengthen or diminish confidence.
Justice must be done. But that principle carries a second half, just as important: justice must also be seen to be done. The fight against corruption cannot afford the appearance of partisan justice, and elections must not become sanctuaries for suspected wrongdoing. There lies the balance. The EFCC must investigate without fear or favour, and political authorities must resist interfering with legitimate investigations. Independence does not mean blindness to context, just as sensitivity to context must never become immunity from it.
Perhaps every public institution exercising extraordinary powers should ask itself three questions. Is it lawful? Is it necessary? Will its exercise, in these circumstances, preserve public confidence in its impartiality?
The first protects legality, the second proportionality, the third legitimacy, and Nigeria needs all three: justice loses credibility not only when it reaches the wrong conclusion, but when citizens suspect the scales are tilted by political convenience. That suspicion, whether justified or not, is dangerous.
The EFCC’s greatest defence against it is not a press statement, but consistent, even-handed and visibly impartial conduct. In the fight against corruption, justice must not only be non-partisan. It must look non-partisan too.
Dr Lemmy Ughegbe, FIMC, CMC
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645
