The Tinubu administration and the politics of intimidation, By Paul Ibe

The Tinubu administration owes Nigerians an answer. Until it provides one that withstands scrutiny, Nigerians are entitled to question whether what is being presented as an anti-corruption operation has become entangled with the politics of political survival.

There comes a point in the life of every government when its actions begin to tell a story far more revealing than its words.

The story now being told by the Tinubu administration is increasingly difficult to ignore: When an incumbent government begins to feel politically threatened, the institutions of state suddenly become intensely interested in its opponents.

The latest episode is the move to bring former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, under the scrutiny of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The question Nigerians should be asking is not merely: What is the allegation?

It is: WHY NOW?

In September 2017, Atiku Abubakar publicly challenged anyone with evidence of his involvement in corruption or the embezzlement of public funds to submit such evidence to the appropriate anti-corruption agencies.

He has reiterated that challenge over the years.

This is not a man who has been hiding from scrutiny.

As Vice President from 1999 to 2007, Atiku was subjected to investigations by the government of President Olusegun Obasanjo. He subsequently fought several legal battles arising from allegations against him and efforts to damage his reputation, winning important victories in court, which have deepened our democracy.

Then came nearly two decades during which different administrations controlled the machinery of the Nigerian state.

Governments came and went. Political parties changed. Presidents changed. Anti-corruption agencies continued to operate.

Yet no successive administration found it necessary to prosecute Atiku Abubakar for corruption.

Until now. Now, as Nigeria moves toward another presidential election, Atiku has emerged as the principal opposition challenger to President Bola Tinubu.

And suddenly, an old allegation acquires new urgency.

Suddenly, the EFCC is being drawn into the matter. Suddenly, an opposition presidential candidate is facing precisely the kind of state attention that inevitably raises questions about political motivation.

But there is an even more troubling dimension to this. It is difficult to reconcile the administration’s professed commitment to transparency and accountability with President Tinubu’s own ongoing legal effort in the United States to prevent the release of FBI, DOJ and DEA records relating to historical investigations involving him.

The records sought in that FOIA litigation include FBI materials and interview records from the early 1990s concerning investigations into drug-trafficking allegations. Tinubu’s legal team has asked the US court to maintain redactions and withholdings, arguing, among other things, that the records are protected by privacy rights.

To be clear, the existence of those records or the ongoing FOIA dispute does not itself establish criminal wrongdoing by President Tinubu.

But that is precisely why the contrast is so striking.

How can an administration demand maximum scrutiny of an opposition candidate, while simultaneously resisting the public release of records that could help Nigerians understand longstanding questions surrounding the President himself?

If transparency is the principle, it must apply to everyone. If accountability is the standard, it cannot be selectively applied. And if anti-corruption agencies are genuinely independent, they must not be engineered into instruments for achieving political ends.

Nigerians understand the difference between genuine accountability and politically convenient accountability. They understand that corruption must be investigated regardless of who is involved.

But they also understand that the selective deployment of state institutions can itself become a form of political corruption.

The Tinubu administration must therefore answer a simple question: what changed?

Did investigators suddenly uncover evidence that successive administrations did not have? Did new facts emerge? Or did Atiku simply become politically inconvenient?

That question becomes even more important in light of the wider concerns surrounding the treatment of opposition politicians and the use of state institutions in the political contest ahead of 2027.

Taken individually, each incident may be explained away. Taken together, however, they paint a disturbing picture.

And Nigerians should be concerned. Because democracy is not merely about holding elections. It is about ensuring that the competition preceding those elections is free, fair and conducted on a level playing field.

An incumbent government possesses enormous advantages: control of state resources, visibility, security agencies, regulatory institutions and the machinery of government. That power comes with an obligation not to weaponise the state against political opponents.

The EFCC has a legitimate and important mandate. But it must never become an instrument for settling political scores.

If Atiku Abubakar has committed a crime, investigate him. If there is credible evidence, charge him. If the evidence withstands judicial scrutiny and the courts find him guilty, let the law take its course.

But if the objective is to intimidate, embarrass, distract or politically weaken an opposition candidate on the eve of a major election, then Nigerians have every right to question the motive.

And there is now a particularly important precedent. The State Security Service (SSS) has reportedly directed its counsel to seek an adjournment of its case against African Action Congress presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore until after the 16 January, 2027 presidential election. The reported reason is to ensure that the pending case does not impede his participation in the electoral process.

That raises an obvious question: if it is considered fair to avoid allowing a state prosecution to interfere with an opposition presidential candidate’s participation in an election, why should the same principle not apply to every presidential candidate?

Why should one opposition candidate be given breathing space while another is subjected to intensified state scrutiny as the election approaches? The principle cannot be selectively applied.

The government should also remember something fundamental: Atiku is not the Nigerian state. Neither is Tinubu.

The EFCC belongs to Nigeria. The SSS belongs to Nigeria. The police belong to Nigeria. The courts belong to Nigeria.

These institutions do not belong to the APC, just as they did not belong to the PDP when it was in power.

The danger of weaponising state institutions is that governments eventually change, but institutions remain.

Those who establish the precedent of using government machinery to weaken political opponents may one day discover that they have created a weapon that can be turned against them.

That is why this is bigger than Atiku Abubakar. It is about the kind of democracy that Nigerians want to leave for their children.

Do we want elections in which governments defeat opponents with ideas, policies and performance? Or do we want elections in which incumbents use the police, EFCC, ICPC, security agencies and other institutions to make opposition politics increasingly impossible?

That is the real issue. President Tinubu should have enough confidence in his record to face Atiku and every other challenger at the ballot box.

If the administration believes Nigerians are satisfied with the broken state of the economy, pervasive insecurity, joblessness, extremely low purchasing power and the general direction of the country, then it should welcome the 2027 election as an opportunity to secure a renewed mandate.

It should not need the EFCC to do its political work.

Let Atiku campaign. Let Sowore campaign. Let every opposition candidate campaign. Let the APC campaign.

Then let Nigerians decide.

That is what democracy requires. What democracy does not require is an incumbent government turning the institutions of state into instruments of political intimidation.

And so the question remains: WHY NOW?

Why after almost 20 years? Why under this administration? Why as Atiku emerges as a principal opposition challenger? Why now, when the political temperature ahead of 2027 is rising?

And why should Nigerians trust an administration that demands transparency from its political opponents while its own president is resisting the release of historical US law-enforcement records concerning allegations that have been the subject of public controversy for years?

The Tinubu administration owes Nigerians an answer. Until it provides one that withstands scrutiny, Nigerians are entitled to question whether what is being presented as an anti-corruption operation has become entangled with the politics of political survival.

If Tinubu cannot defeat Atiku at the ballot box, he should not attempt to defeat him through the institutions of state.

That is not strength. It is an admission that the ballot box may no longer be enough.

And history has never been kind to governments that confuse the power to govern with the power to silence their opponents.

Paul Ibe, media adviser to Atiku Abubakar, writes from Abuja.