By Kenneth Eze, Postgraduate Student, University of Johannesburg Centre for Social Change
(Published on News Global TV, Friday, August 7, 2026)
Abuja, Nigeria – Nigeria’s anti-corruption debate has once again entered a familiar but important national conversation: the balance between the legitimate demand for accountability and the growing suspicion that anti-graft institutions may sometimes be influenced by political considerations.
The recent controversy surrounding the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigation involving top former government officials many years after leaving office, over alleged financial issues connected to the state’s public accounts and questions of accountability, has renewed national attention. The most recent is the reopening of investigations involving former Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi and other officials over alleged financial stewardship, including discussions surrounding the Ekiti Airport project. This has reignited questions about the powers of anti-corruption agencies and the timing of their investigations.
At the centre of this debate is a fundamental question: Is the EFCC’s investigative power time-bound, or does the agency have the legal authority to investigate alleged financial crimes whenever credible evidence emerges?
The answer is straightforward: the investigative power of the EFCC is not restricted to a particular period or political administration. It is open-ended and continues beyond the tenure of public officials, provided investigations are conducted within the framework of the law and guided by credible evidence.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 (as amended), empowers the EFCC to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes, including corruption, fraud, money laundering and other financial offences. The law does not require the Commission to investigate an individual immediately after leaving office, nor does it impose an expiration date on when allegations of financial misconduct may be examined.
This is important because corruption-related offences are fundamentally different from ordinary political disputes. They often involve complex financial transactions, official documents, audit trails, institutional records and multiple actors. Investigations into such matters may require significant time, intelligence gathering, evidence verification and legal review before they become public knowledge.
Therefore, the argument that an investigation is automatically politically motivated simply because it occurs years after an alleged offence, after an individual changes political parties or identifies with another political platform, or after a public official has left office, is not supported by law or by the realities of financial crime investigations. However, this position must always be balanced with the need for institutional fairness.
Public accountability does not end when a politician leaves office. Holding public office comes with a continuing responsibility to account for the management of public resources. A former governor, minister or public official cannot claim immunity from scrutiny simply because investigations did not begin immediately after their tenure.
If credible evidence suggests that public funds may have been mismanaged, the appropriate institution has a legal responsibility to investigate. The identity, political party or current political relationship of the individual involved should never determine whether accountability is pursued.
The principle should remain clear: investigations should be driven by evidence, not political affiliation. However, one cannot ignore the concerns raised by many Nigerians regarding the timing of some anti-corruption investigations. In several instances, investigations involving politically exposed persons have generated public debate about whether anti-corruption institutions are acting independently or responding to political developments.
The recent discussions surrounding former Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi and former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai demonstrate this challenge. While supporters of the affected individuals have questioned the timing and circumstances surrounding investigations, others have argued that former public officials must remain accountable at all times for decisions taken while in office.
Both perspectives highlight a critical reality: the fight against corruption is not only about legal authority; it is also about public confidence.
An anti-corruption institution may possess the legal power to investigate, but if citizens perceive its actions as selective, politically influenced or inconsistent, the credibility of the entire anti-corruption system suffers.
However, it is equally important that Nigerians do not adopt the misconception that a delayed investigation automatically amounts to political persecution. Such assumptions can unintentionally provide cover for individuals who may have genuine accountability questions to answer.
Over time, some public officials facing scrutiny have relied on claims of political victimisation as a strategy to divert attention from legitimate accountability issues.
While genuine cases of institutional abuse must always be challenged in a democracy, the existence of political allegations should not prevent lawful investigations from taking place.
The EFCC, like other anti-corruption institutions around the world, operates within administrative and investigative realities that are not always visible to the public.
Before an investigation becomes public knowledge, several internal processes may take place. These include reviewing petitions, conducting preliminary intelligence assessments, verifying financial documents, gathering evidence, consulting legal experts, determining jurisdiction, identifying relevant persons and assessing whether the available evidence meets the threshold required for prosecution. The public is usually unaware of these internal processes.
Furthermore, anti-corruption agencies often deal with thousands of petitions and allegations involving individuals, organisations and government institutions. Limited resources, competing priorities, legal procedures and the complexity of financial crimes all influence the pace at which cases progress.
Therefore, it is unfair to assume that an investigation did not exist simply because the public was unaware of it or because action did not occur at the time some citizens expected.
At the same time, the EFCC must recognise that public perception is a critical component of the anti-corruption struggle. The agency cannot afford to consistently operate in a communication vacuum and expect Nigerians not to question its motives. Even when an investigation is legally justified, poor communication can create unnecessary suspicion and damage public trust.
The EFCC should therefore strengthen its strategic communication approach. Without compromising confidential investigations, the agency can provide periodic public updates on general categories of cases under investigation, institutional priorities and reforms being undertaken.
For example, a monthly or quarterly public briefing on major anti-corruption activities, without revealing sensitive evidence, could help Nigerians better understand the broader direction of the agency’s work.
The EFCC should also develop clearer internal prioritisation mechanisms based on factors such as the scale of alleged financial loss, national interest, impact on citizens, strength of available evidence and urgency of the matter.
When citizens understand why certain cases receive attention before others, the perception of selective justice will reduce.
The fight against corruption requires strong institutions, not weakened institutions. Creating artificial restrictions on when investigations can occur would only benefit individuals who may have escaped scrutiny during their time in office.
At the same time, institutions with enormous powers must continuously demonstrate fairness, neutrality and professionalism.
The EFCC must investigate ruling party officials, opposition politicians, former leaders and serving public officers with the same commitment and urgency. Anti-corruption cannot succeed when justice appears to have political preferences.
Nigeria does not need an anti-corruption system where investigations are delayed for political convenience or accelerated for political revenge. What the country needs is an institution where investigations are based on evidence, conducted according to law and communicated responsibly to the public.
The EFCC’s investigative authority is not time-bound. It is a continuing responsibility provided by law. But with that responsibility comes the obligation to ensure that Nigerians see anti-corruption efforts as a genuine pursuit of accountability and justice, not as a weapon in political contests.
A democracy becomes stronger when institutions are trusted, accountability is consistent and no individual—regardless of political status, influence or former office—is placed above scrutiny.
— Kenneth Eze writes from Abuja, Nigeria.
engrchukeze2014@gmail.com
Accountability doesn’t expire. But neither should fairness. EFCC must investigate with consistency, communicate clearly, and prove it serves justice—not politics.