By Akin Samuel Kayode (ASK)
The reported 14-day ultimatum issued by a former House of Representatives member and a chieftain of the National Democratic Congress, NDC, Ehiozuwa Agbonayinma, through his lawyer, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, demanding the reopening and prosecution of alleged financial crimes involving the Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, deserves more than political applause or condemnation. It deserves scrutiny. The central question for Nigerians should be simple: is there credible new evidence requiring fresh action, or are old allegations being repackaged and presented as though they constitute established criminal guilt?
There is nothing wrong with Agbonayinma petitioning the EFCC. Every citizen has the right to demand accountability where he genuinely believes a crime has been committed. Equally, no Nigerian, whether serving or retired, should be above investigation. But there is a fundamental distinction that must not be lost in the political noise: an allegation is not a conviction, an investigative report is not a court judgment, and a petition is not proof of criminal guilt.
That distinction becomes particularly important because the allegations being referenced are not new. Agbonayinma’s petition reportedly points to an EFCC investigation and report dating back to 2006, as well as a later investigation by a United States Senate subcommittee. If these documents contain credible evidence of criminal conduct, Nigerians are entitled to ask what specific evidence they contain, whether that evidence remains legally actionable, and why it did not result in a successful prosecution at the appropriate time.
Conversely, if the matter was investigated but could not proceed because of constitutional, evidentiary or other legal circumstances, Nigerians also deserve to know that. If the case was closed, what was the basis? If it was never prosecuted, why? And if Agbonayinma now possesses fresh evidence, what precisely is that evidence?
These questions do not amount to protecting Atiku Abubakar from accountability. In fact, Atiku himself has repeatedly challenged anyone who claims to possess evidence of wrongdoing against him to present that evidence, investigate him, invite him, and prosecute him if there is a genuine case. That position should settle one important matter: Atiku is not asking for immunity from investigation. He is asking that allegations be subjected to evidence and due process.
There is therefore no basis for presenting a petition, an allegation or an old investigative document as though it has already established criminal liability. If the EFCC has evidence capable of sustaining a prosecution, let it act within the law. If it does not, the public deserves to know that as well.
The reference to foreign investigations must equally be treated with the seriousness it deserves, but also with legal discipline. A report from a foreign legislative or investigative body may provide information worthy of examination; however, its existence does not automatically establish criminal guilt under Nigerian law. Allegations, investigative findings, prosecutorial decisions and judicial convictions are distinct matters. A serious democracy must know the difference. It is equally important to distinguish between a foreign investigation, a legislative inquiry, a law-enforcement investigation, a prosecutorial action and a judicial determination. They do not carry the same legal meaning, and none should be presented to the Nigerian public as a criminal conviction where no such conviction exists.
There is also an important point that should not be lost in the present political environment. Atiku Abubakar is himself pursuing legal and constitutional remedies over matters concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. That is precisely how a democracy is supposed to function: where a citizen or political actor believes there is a legal wrong, he can present his case before the appropriate institution and allow the courts to determine the issues. The same principle must apply when allegations are made against Atiku. He should be judged by evidence and law, not by the volume or political intensity of accusations.
This is why the EFCC must be particularly careful. If there is credible evidence against Atiku, investigate him. If the evidence establishes a prosecutable offence, prosecute him. But if the evidence does not establish a case, Nigerians should not be left with insinuations masquerading as conclusions. An anti-corruption agency does not strengthen its credibility by responding to political pressure; it strengthens its credibility by applying the same evidentiary standard to everyone.
And this principle must apply universally. If Atiku should be investigated, investigate him. If there is a prosecutable case, prosecute him. But apply precisely the same standard to every politician, regardless of party, office or political influence. Anti-corruption cannot be credible when it becomes selective, partisan or dependent on who is politically convenient to pursue.
The real test, therefore, is bigger than Atiku Abubakar and bigger than Ehiozuwa Agbonayinma’s petition. It is whether Nigeria can build institutions capable of pursuing financial crimes without fear or favour. The credibility of the EFCC should not be measured by how quickly it responds to politically charged demands, but by whether it follows credible evidence wherever that evidence leads.
The responsible position, therefore, is neither to declare Atiku guilty nor to dismiss every allegation against him as political persecution. Let the evidence speak. If credible evidence establishes a case to answer, let the law take its course. If there is no sustainable case, let the public know why. Nigerians deserve facts rather than insinuations, due process rather than trial by media, and justice rather than political theatre.
Nigeria has witnessed too many allegations become political weapons, only to disappear when the political moment passes. We should demand something better. The same law must apply to the powerful and the powerless, to government and opposition, to yesterday’s office holders and today’s political actors.
The 14-day ultimatum issued by Ehiozuwa Agbonayinma may generate headlines, but it should not determine guilt or innocence. Evidence should. Due process should. The law should.
If the EFCC truly wants Nigerians to believe that nobody is above the law, this is an opportunity to demonstrate it, not through selective action against one political figure, but through an impartial standard that applies to everyone.
Let Atiku face the law if there is a case to answer. Let those making the allegations establish their basis. And let the courts, not political campaigns, determine guilt.
That is not protecting corruption.
That is protecting justice.
Akin Samuel Kayode (ASK)
Member, Intelligence and Surveillance Squad
The Narrative Force
