In the fight against corruption, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has become a central figure in Nigeria’s ongoing battle to hold public officials accountable.
Despite its successes, there is a notable trend: former governors face prosecution more frequently than former presidents.
This raises questions about the underlying reasons for this disparity. Here’s why I believe the EFCC finds it easier to prosecute former governors compared to former presidents.
Legal Loopholes and Immunity
One of the biggest obstacles in prosecuting former presidents is the legal framework that provides them with a degree of immunity. These protections, while intended to ensure stability during their term in office, often extend beyond their presidency.
This makes it challenging for the EFCC to build a case against them without confronting a legal minefield. Former governors, however, usually don’t enjoy the same level of immunity, allowing the EFCC to pursue them with fewer legal hurdles.
Political Connections and Influence
Another reason why former governors are easier targets is the political landscape. Former presidents tend to have deep-rooted connections and a broad network of supporters who can influence the course of an investigation.
This political capital can make prosecuting former presidents a risky endeavor. Former governors, despite their power within their states, typically lack the extensive national influence that former presidents possess.
This makes it easier for the EFCC to operate without as much pushback.
Complexity of Cases
Presidential corruption cases are inherently more complex, often involving multiple jurisdictions and matters of national security.
These cases require extensive resources and expertise, making them more challenging for the EFCC to pursue effectively. In contrast, cases against former governors are usually more contained, with fewer layers of bureaucracy to navigate.
This simplicity allows the EFCC to make quicker progress in its investigations and prosecutions.
Political Ramifications
The political implications of prosecuting a former president can be significant. It could trigger political instability or create a backlash that threatens the nation’s peace.
Such potential fallout can make the EFCC hesitant to pursue high-profile cases against former presidents. Meanwhile, prosecuting former governors, while still significant, doesn’t carry the same level of national impact.
This difference in political risk likely plays a role in the EFCC’s approach to corruption cases.
Conclusion
The EFCC’s challenges in prosecuting former presidents are a reflection of the broader systemic issues in Nigeria’s fight against corruption.
Legal protections, political connections, case complexity, and potential political ramifications all contribute to the difficulty of holding former presidents accountable.
Until these barriers are addressed, the EFCC’s efforts to combat corruption at the highest levels will continue to face significant obstacles. It is clear that to truly achieve justice, the nation must find a way to create a level playing field, ensuring that all public officials, regardless of their position, are held to the same standard.
Comrade Olamide David
Active Citizen, Online and Offline.
