Tinubu Administration Accused of Targeting Opposition While Shielding APC Members: An Analysis

A senior figure within the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC) has leveled a serious accusation against President Bola Tinubu’s administration, alleging a systematic pattern of focusing investigative and enforcement actions on opposition personalities while providing effective immunity to members of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). This claim, if accurate, points to a deeply concerning erosion of equitable governance and the impartial application of the law in Nigeria’s democracy.

Introduction: The Core Allegation of Partisan Enforcement

The political climate in Nigeria is once again charged with accusations of selective justice. Idris Kalgo, a prominent chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has publicly asserted that the executive branch under President Bola Tinubu is engaged in a calculated strategy. According to Kalgo, this strategy involves aggressively pursuing legal and investigative actions against members and figures associated with opposition parties, particularly the ADC, while simultaneously shielding individuals affiliated with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) from similar scrutiny, regardless of the gravity of allegations against them.

Kalgo presented these allegations during an appearance on Trust TV, framing the issue not as isolated incidents but as a systemic and deliberate policy. His central question—”Why is it only ADC members who are being pursued?”—encapsulates the opposition’s frustration and perceived double standard. This analysis will deconstruct Kalgo’s claims, place them within the broader context of Nigeria’s political and legal history, examine the potential motivations and implications, and offer perspectives on what this means for Nigeria’s democratic trajectory ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Key Points of the Allegation

The accusation rests on several interconnected pillars, which Kalgo articulated with specific examples:

The Perceived Double Standard in Legal Enforcement

Kalgo succinctly described the alleged dichotomy: “As long as you are a member of the APC, you are safe. You are not corrupt. But the moment you leave, you are suddenly labeled corrupt and targeted.” This suggests a legal and investigative framework that operates not on the basis of alleged acts, but on political affiliation. The implication is that membership in the ruling party functions as a de facto shield against state pressure.

Case Study: The Fate of Party Switchers

Kalgo pointed to the example of Dr. Ifeanyi Okowa, the former Governor of Delta State and the 2023 vice-presidential candidate for the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) ticket with Atiku Abubakar. Following the elections, Okowa and several other PDP governors decamped to the APC. Kalgo questioned the lack of “active prison penalties” or significant legal pressure on these high-profile figures, asking rhetorically, “Where is he now?” The inference is that political conversion to the APC results in the immediate cessation of any prior legal or investigative interest.

The Enigmatic Case of Ex-APC Governors

The chieftain also referenced former APC governors, specifically naming Alhaji Yahaya Bello of Kogi State. Bello has faced longstanding allegations and, at times, wanted notices from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Kalgo highlighted the pattern of attempted arrests that ultimately fail, noting, “We have seen attempts at arrests, even at airports, but ultimately they remain free.” This, he argued, demonstrates a lack of genuine will to pursue cases against those within the APC’s historical or current orbit.

A Strategic Move to Cripple Opposition for 2027

Kalgo connected these actions directly to electoral politics. He alleged that the crackdown on ADC members is a “strategic move to slow down opposition momentum ahead of the 2027 elections.” The target, he stated, is individuals and parties “capable of challenging power,” asserting, “That’s why they are afraid.” This frames the legal actions as preemptive political warfare rather than a neutral fight against corruption.

Background: The Landscape of Nigerian Politics and Selective Justice Claims

To understand the gravity of Kalgo’s allegation, one must contextualize it within Nigeria’s recent political history. The concept of “selective justice” or the use of state security agencies to harass political opponents is not new. It has been a recurring theme since the return to democracy in 1999, often surfacing most prominently when a new administration takes office.

A Historical Pattern of “Federal Might”

Successive governments, regardless of party, have been accused by opponents of weaponizing agencies like the EFCC, the Department of State Services (DSS), and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) against perceived adversaries. The phenomenon is often colloquially referred to as the “federal might” being used to subdue opposition, particularly at the sub-national level where state governors and their allies may become targets after a change in federal power.

The 2023 Election Aftermath and Party Realignments

The 2023 general elections were fiercely contested, with the APC’s Bola Tinubu emerging as president amidst opposition claims of irregularities. The post-election period witnessed significant political realignments, with a large number of governors and federal lawmakers from the defeated PDP crossing the aisle to join the APC. This created a super-majority for the APC in the National Assembly and consolidated its control at the state level in many regions. In this new political configuration, the ADC and smaller parties find themselves with even less institutional power and, as Kalgo alleges, more vulnerable to state pressure.

The ADC’s Position

The ADC, while not a major national party like the PDP or APC, has positioned itself as a vocal opposition voice and has won some state-level and legislative seats. Its chieftains, like Kalgo, often serve as barometers for the health of opposition politics. Accusations from a party like the ADC, therefore, signal a perceived narrowing of the democratic space for all non-APC political actors.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Allegations and Their Implications

Kalgo’s statement is a political allegation, not a legal finding. A rigorous analysis requires separating the rhetorical elements from the evidential claims and examining the potential consequences if the pattern he describes is real or perceived as real.

The “Shield” vs. “Sword” Dichotomy

The core of the analysis is the dual claim: 1) The APC has a protective shield, and 2) The opposition faces the state’s sword. For the shield, the evidence is largely circumstantial: the absence of high-profile prosecutions against current or recently converted APC bigwigs despite public allegations (e.g., concerning state allocations, contracts, or security votes). The Okowa case is presented as the key exhibit—a dramatic political switch without a concomitant legal consequence. For the sword, Kalgo points to specific ADC members reportedly facing investigations or arrests. The veracity of each individual case would require separate examination, but the pattern is the political point.

Motivations: Consolidating Power for 2027

If the allegation holds water, the primary motivation is electoral strategy. By applying continuous legal and psychological pressure on opposition figures—through investigations, media trials, travel bans, or arrests—the state apparatus can achieve several goals:

• Drain Resources: Defending against investigations consumes time, money, and energy.
• Intimidate and Demoralize: Creates a chilling effect on political activism and ambition within opposition circles.
• Neutralize Potential Leaders: Removes or sidelines individuals who could be formidable candidates or mobilizers in 2027.
• Project Strength: Sends a message to the public and other politicians about the cost of crossing or challenging the ruling party.

Erosion of Democratic Institutions

The most profound implication is the further weakening of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. The independence of investigative agencies is a cornerstone of a functional democracy. When these agencies are perceived as the “long arm of the ruling party,” public trust evaporates. This leads to:

• Cynicism and Voter Apathy: Citizens may see elections as meaningless if the state machinery is permanently tilted.
• Politicization of the Judiciary: If cases stemming from these selective investigations clog the courts, it can create pressure on judges and further entangle the judiciary in politics.
• Normalization of Authoritarian Tactics: Using state power to suppress opposition becomes an accepted modus operandi, drifting further from democratic norms.

The Government’s Likely Counter-Narrative

The Tinubu administration would almost certainly reject these allegations. Its probable defenses would include:

• Non-Interference: Claiming that agencies like the EFCC operate independently and that any actions are based on evidence, not politics.
• Focus on Past Administrations: Arguing that many investigations target figures from the previous PDP administration (2015-2023), which is a standard “recovery” narrative after an opposition win.
• Rule of Law: Stating that everyone is equal before the law and that those who feel aggrieved should seek redress in court.
• Dismissing the Source: Characterizing Kalgo’s remarks as the sour grapes of a marginalized opposition politician with little national relevance.

Practical Advice: Navigating the Political Landscape

For political actors, civil society, and citizens concerned by these dynamics, understanding the landscape is the first step to navigating it.

For Opposition Politicians and Parties

• Document Everything: Maintain meticulous, transparent records of party and campaign finances to preempt any dubious allegations.
• Build Coalitions: Strength in numbers is a deterrent. Broader opposition alliances (like the now-strained PDP/LP/ NNPP coalition) make targeted persecution more politically costly.
• Legal Preparedness: Invest in a robust, reputable legal team familiar with both criminal procedure and human rights law. Have protocols for immediate response to arrests or summons.
• Strategic Communication: Counteract the narrative of guilt by association. Use media and social platforms to frame state actions as political persecution, not law enforcement. Internationalize the issue where appropriate.
• Institutionalize the Party: Move beyond personality-based politics. A strong, disciplined party with clear structures and a national secretariat is harder to dismantle through individual targeting.

For Civil Society and the Media

• Vigilant Monitoring: Systematically track and document all cases of political arrests, asset seizures, and agency actions. Create a public database to identify patterns.
• Demand Transparency: Consistently request and publish information on agency budgets, high-profile case statuses, and the political affiliations of agency heads and key appointees.
• Frame as a Democratic Issue: Move the discourse beyond “one party vs. another.” Frame selective justice as a threat to all Nigerians’ rights, the independence of the judiciary, and economic stability.
• Legal Intervention: File amicus curiae briefs in key cases, support public interest litigation challenging the unconstitutional use of state power, and provide legal aid networks.

For the General Public

• Critical Consumption: Be skeptical of media narratives that automatically frame arrested politicians as “corrupt.” Demand evidence. Ask: “Where is the case against the APC figure with similar allegations?”
• Vote with Institutional Health in Mind: In future elections, prioritize candidates and parties with a demonstrable record of respecting institutional independence, not just those promising material benefits.
• Engage in Peaceful Advocacy: Use lawful channels—town halls, social media, organized peaceful protests—to demand equitable application of the law. The message must be “Equal Justice for All,” not “Save Our Party.”

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Is “selective justice” a uniquely Nigerian problem?

No. The weaponization of law enforcement for political ends is a global phenomenon observed in hybrid regimes and even some established democracies experiencing partisan polarization. However, in Nigeria’s context, it is exacerbated by a history of weak institutions, endemic corruption that makes allegations easily weaponizable, and intense zero-sum political competition where state power is the primary prize.

What concrete evidence exists beyond political rhetoric?

Beyond specific cases cited by Kalgo (which require independent verification), statistical evidence is often cited by analysts. Studies have shown disproportionate investigations, prosecutions, and convictions of opposition figures in certain periods. The most compelling “evidence” is the stark contrast in outcomes for politicians with similar allegations who belong to different parties, especially the phenomenon of “cross-carpeting immunity.” Documented cases of sudden dropped charges or stayed proceedings after a politician defects to the APC are frequently pointed to.

Couldn’t this just be a coincidence? Maybe the opposition is genuinely more corrupt?

This is the government’s standard defense. Proving a negative—that the opposition is *not* more corrupt—is impossible. However, the scale and pattern of the disparity, particularly the immediate cessation of interest in cases upon defection to the APC, strongly suggest causality beyond coincidence. Genuine anti-corruption efforts would logically pursue credible allegations regardless of the suspect’s current party label, which, according to the accusation, is not happening.

What can be done legally to stop this?

Legally, the path is difficult but not closed. Options include:

• Constitutional Litigation: Suing for the violation of fundamental rights to equal protection, freedom from discrimination, and fair hearing.
• Judicial Review: Challenging specific arrest warrants, asset seizures, or agency actions as being made in bad faith or without probable cause.
• International Mechanisms: Filing petitions with regional bodies like the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, though enforcement is weak.
• Legislative Oversight: An opposition-dominated National Assembly could conduct hearings, but with the APC’s super-majority, this is currently not a viable check.

How does this affect foreign investment and Nigeria’s international reputation?

Perceptions of political risk are heavily influenced by the rule of law. If Nigeria is seen as