Let el-Rufai enjoy his full rights, by Adamu Lawal Toro

The ongoing clash between the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission and Nasir el-Rufai’s family is gradually degenerating into something much more dangerous than a simple corruption investigation. It is becoming a test of whether Nigerian institutions can enforce the law without appearing vindictive, selective or politically motivated.

No serious society can survive without strong anti-corruption institutions. Public officials who abuse public resources must be subjected to investigations and prosecutions. Nigerians are exhausted by decades of impunity, where powerful men enrich themselves while citizens suffer poverty, insecurity and collapsing infrastructure. Therefore, no one, including Nasir el-Rufai, should be immune to scrutiny.

But anti-corruption agencies must understand a simple principle: the legitimacy of justice depends not only on punishment, but also on fairness, moderation and respect for the law. Once an agency begins to seem arbitrary, emotional, or politically weaponized, it weakens both itself and the broader democratic system.

According to family sources, the ICPC allegedly denied el-Rufai access to his personal doctor despite an existing court order allowing unrestricted medical access. The agency also reportedly prevented the wife from delivering food because she arrived after the internally mandated time of 6:30 p.m. expiration.

Whether one admires or despises el-Rufai is irrelevant. Rights do not belong only to those who are popular or politically convenient. Constitutional protections exist precisely for times when the state possesses overwhelming power over an individual.

If there actually is a valid court order allowing medical access, then any obstruction by officials is indefensible.

Agencies cannot selectively obey judicial directives. The rule of law is not a buffet where institutions choose which orders to honor and which to ignore. The moment security or anti-corruption agencies begin to treat court orders as optional suggestions, Nigeria comes dangerously close to institutional lawlessness.

This is particularly sensitive because el-Rufai is no ordinary political figure. As the former governor of Kaduna State and one of the Fourth Republic’s most controversial political players, he commands both fierce loyalty and deep opposition. Any move against him will inevitably be interpreted through a political lens. This reality places an even heavier burden on the ICPC to act with transparency and procedural discipline.

Unfortunately, Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies have historically struggled with public credibility. From the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to the ICPC itself, allegations of selective prosecution have continued to persist across administrations. Political opponents are often aggressively persecuted while allies of those in power appear untouchable. Cases are announced loudly in front of cameras, only to quietly collapse years later in court.

This model has created public cynicism. Many Nigerians now see the fight against corruption not as a principled institutional mission, but as a political weapon deployed against enemies and discarded when inconvenient.

This perception becomes even stronger when investigations are accompanied by dramatic displays that seem designed to humiliate rather than prosecute. Denying family access to food or limiting medical consultations creates the impression of punishment before sentencing. Shift the focus from alleged corruption to alleged persecution.

The ICPC must be careful not to turn el-Rufai into a political martyr. Nigeria has repeatedly witnessed this cycle. Public officials under investigation often gain sympathy not because citizens suddenly believe they are innocent, but because the state’s conduct appears excessive. In many cases, heavy-handed treatment allows politically exposed people to rebrand themselves as victims of oppression rather than objects of legitimate investigation.

Ironically, this can harm anti-corruption efforts more than total inaction. Once public opinion loses faith in the neutrality of institutions, every accusation becomes politically tainted.
There is another, deeper danger in this ongoing drama: the erosion of institutional maturity.

Democracy is not supported only by elections. It survives thanks to institutional restrictions. Agencies must understand the limits of their power. The courts must be respected. Prisoners must maintain basic human rights. Procedures must be consistent and transparent. Without these safeguards, democratic institutions slowly acquire authoritarian habits.

Nigeria’s democratic path is already fragile. Public trust in institutions is dangerously low. Citizens see widespread insecurity, economic hardship, elite impunity and selective justice. In such a context, state agencies cannot afford conduct that reinforces fears of arbitrariness.

This does not mean that El-Rufai should be exempted from all responsibility. Far from it. If there is evidence of corruption, abuse of office, financial misconduct or violation of procurement laws, the ICPC should prosecute the case rigorously and professionally. Nigerians deserve accountability from all public officials, past and present.

But professionalism matters.
The most effective cases against corruption are built not through media warfare or institutional intimidation, but through evidence, due process and credible prosecution. The courts, not the emotional statements of the press, must determine guilt or innocence.

The ICPC must, therefore, answer the crucial questions openly. Was there really a court order granting unrestricted medical access? If so, why would the doctor have been denied entry? What legal basis exists for restricting food delivery? Were these actions standard detention procedures or targeted measures? Silence or evasiveness will only deepen suspicion.

Nigeria does not need another institutional war between powerful political actors and state agencies. What the country desperately needs is credibility. Citizens want to see anti-corruption institutions that are firm but fair, strong but legal, aggressive but sober.
This balance is what separates justice from revenge.

The tragedy of Nigeria’s anti-corruption history is not simply that corruption persists. The fact is that institutions that fight corruption often weaken due to inconsistency, political interference, media sensationalism and procedural recklessness.

If the ICPC truly wants the public’s trust, it must demonstrate that even its enemies maintain constitutional protection. Respect for rights is not weakness. It is the foundation of legitimate authority.

Ultimately, the question facing Nigerians is broader than Nasir el-Rufai himself. The question is whether anti-corruption institutions can rise above politics and behave in a manner worthy of public trust.

If they fail this test, then the fight against corruption risks becoming yet another arena for political score-settling, where institutions lose credibility, democracy weakens further and justice becomes indistinguishable from power.

■ Toro, a veteran journalist, lives in Bauchi.

Related