Adefemi Bayode AdebisiMember, Social Media Firestorm CommitteeThe Narrative Force
Something is seriously wrong with a political environment in which an allegation can be dragged out of the archives, dusted off, repackaged as breaking news and then served to Nigerians as though a competent court has already pronounced judgment. That is precisely why Nigerians must pause and ask a very uncomfortable question: When did a petition become a conviction? The latest petition by Ehiozuwa Agbonayinma asking the EFCC to reopen and prosecute former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is not, by itself, evidence that Atiku is guilty of the allegations contained in it. It is a petition. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a request to an institution to investigate or take action. It is not a judicial verdict, it is not a conviction, and it does not confer upon the petitioner or his lawyer the power to declare another Nigerian criminally guilty.
Yet, judging from the manner in which such allegations are being circulated, one could be forgiven for thinking that Atiku has already been tried, convicted and sentenced somewhere—and that Nigerians simply forgot to attend the trial. They did not. And that distinction is not a technicality; it is the very foundation of justice. So let us strip away the political noise and ask the question that should matter above every headline, every petition and every social-media campaign: Was Atiku Abubakar ever convicted by a competent court for the offences now being alleged against him? If the answer is no, then Nigerians must be extremely careful about accepting recycled allegations as established criminality. A democratic society cannot operate on the principle that an accusation becomes true because it is repeated loudly enough or often enough. Repetition is not evidence. A petition is not a judgment. And political theatre is not due process.
The petition reportedly places considerable reliance on references to a 2006 EFCC report and a 2010 United States Senate Subcommittee report. Fine. Let those documents be examined. Let whatever evidence is legally relevant be tested. But Nigerians must understand the difference between an investigative report and a criminal conviction. A congressional investigation in the United States is not a criminal trial. It may examine transactions, investigate conduct, gather information and make findings or recommendations, but it does not substitute for a criminal court determining whether an individual committed an offence. Likewise, an EFCC report is not automatically a conviction. An investigation may raise questions; an allegation may justify further investigation; evidence may eventually justify prosecution. But the final determination of criminal guilt belongs to the judicial process. That is precisely why the current attempt to turn historical allegations into political ammunition deserves scrutiny.
If there is fresh and credible evidence, let it come out. If there is admissible evidence establishing a prosecutable offence, let the EFCC do its job. If there is a case, prosecute it. Nobody is asking the EFCC to close its eyes to corruption because the accused is politically important. But there is another side to the principle, and it must be stated with equal force: the EFCC must not be transformed into an instrument for settling political scores, and Nigerians must not be turned into a jury sitting on social media. Atiku Abubakar does not have to prove his innocence in newspapers, on television or before social-media mobs. The prosecution must establish its case through the law. That is how criminal justice works.
Otherwise, what are we really saying? That anybody can write a petition against a political opponent, attach old reports, issue an ultimatum and then demand that Nigerians treat the target as guilty before any court has heard the case? That would be an astonishingly dangerous precedent. Today the target is Atiku. Tomorrow it could be another opposition politician. The day after, it could be someone sitting comfortably inside the corridors of power. Once the public accepts the proposition that accusation equals guilt, the weapon will eventually turn against everyone. This is why the political context cannot simply be waved away. Atiku Abubakar is a major political figure and the ADC presidential candidate. Consequently, when allegations dating back nearly two decades suddenly return to the centre of political discourse, Nigerians have every right to examine not only the allegations but also the timing, the motive and the political circumstances surrounding their resurrection. That does not mean the allegations should be ignored; it means they should be tested. Evidence should be tested. Motives should be examined. Claims should be scrutinised. And the law should decide.
Agbonayinma has every right to petition the EFCC. His lawyer has every right to make legal arguments. The EFCC has every right to investigate whatever information comes before it. But none of them has the judicial authority to pronounce Atiku Abubakar guilty. That authority belongs to a competent court. Nigeria has suffered enough from the politics of accusation. We have seen reputations destroyed by headlines, careers damaged by rumours and political opponents condemned in the court of public opinion long before a courtroom ever hears the matter. We should know better by now. If there is evidence, present it. If there is a crime, prosecute it. If there is guilt, prove it. If there is a conviction, let the judgment speak. But until a competent court establishes criminal guilt, Nigerians should refuse to participate in the intellectual dishonesty of converting allegations into convictions simply because doing so is politically convenient.
The issue is bigger than Atiku Abubakar. It is about whether Nigeria still believes in due process. It is about whether evidence still matters. It is about whether the courts still have the final word on criminal guilt—or whether political actors, petitions, headlines and social-media campaigns have quietly taken over that responsibility. A petition can trigger an investigation; it cannot manufacture a conviction. And if anyone genuinely believes there is a criminal case against Atiku Abubakar, there is a remarkably simple solution: take the evidence to court. Until then, let us stop pretending that an allegation is a verdict. In a democracy, you do not convict a man because you have accused him loudly. You convict only when the law and the evidence have spoken.
Adefemi Bayode Adebisi
Member, Social Media Firestorm Committee
The Narrative Force
