Opposition Status Is Not a Shield: Why Accountability Must Transcend Political Allegiance in Nigeria
In a powerful statement on the state of Nigeria’s democracy and its fight against corruption, Ogun State Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain, Segun Showunmi, has issued a critical rebuke of a dangerous trend: political figures attempting to use their opposition party status as a legal shield against investigation and prosecution.
The Weaponization of Opposition Status
Showunmi condemned what he describes as a growing tactic where individuals facing scrutiny from agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) immediately frame the process as political persecution or victimization. He argues that this narrative is not just misleading but actively harmful to the foundations of the rule of law.
“Nigeria’s democracy is not under threat because public officials are being investigated,” Showunmi stated. “The real threat emerges when political actors weaponize their opposition status, attempting to grant themselves de facto immunity from the law.” This distinction is crucial. A healthy democracy relies on robust institutions that can hold all citizens equally accountable, regardless of their political affiliation or past power.
Opposition Is Not a Licence, Nor a Shield
The core of Showunmi’s argument rests on a simple, constitutional principle: “whereas opposition is not a licence to steal and not a shield against accountability.” He warns that preemptively labeling an investigation as ‘victimization’ is often a strategic move—an attempt to “pre-empt justice with propaganda” and sway public opinion before facts are established in a court of law.
He elaborated that the Nigerian constitution is unequivocal. It mandates the state to abolish corruption and abuse of power, offering no exemptions for opposition leaders, former office holders, or powerful political coalitions. The only immunity recognized is the limited, temporary protection for certain serving officials, which expires the moment they leave office. “To suggest otherwise is to invent a privilege unknown to the Constitution,” he emphasized.
The Legal Framework for Anti-Corruption Efforts
Showunmi provided essential context on the legal obligations and boundaries of Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework, a point often muddied in political discourse.
He clarified that agencies like the EFCC are legally bound to investigate allegations of economic and financial crimes. This duty is not discretionary. Furthermore, “Investigation, arrest, and prosecution when carried out within the law do not violate fundamental rights.” He pointed out that this is a matter settled by the Supreme Court, not by the intensity of political press conferences.
Presumption of Innocence vs. Right to Investigate
A common point of confusion, which Showunmi addressed head-on, is the relationship between the presumption of innocence and the state’s investigative powers. “Presumption of innocence does not mean no one can be investigated, questioned, or charged,” he explained. The judicial process is designed to determine guilt or innocence. “If you are innocent, the courts will clear you. If you are not, the law will take its course. That is the essence of the rule of law.”
He also dismantled a frequent deflection tactic: the argument that ‘others are also corrupt.’ “This is unknown to Nigerian law,” Showunmi stated. Courts have consistently ruled that the alleged wrongdoing of a third party does not excuse or absolve an accused person. “Accountability is personal. Justice is individual. Guilt is not suspended because someone else has not yet been charged.”
The True Threat to Nigerian Democracy
Shifting the focus, Showunmi identified what he believes is the genuine danger. “What truly threatens Nigeria’s multiparty democracy is not the EFCC doing its job, but the growing attempt to intimidate, delegitimise, or blackmail anti-corruption institutions whenever investigations touch politically exposed persons.”
He argued that democracy, at its core, “does not mean freedom from scrutiny. It means submission to the law, especially by those who once held public trust.” While transparency is welcome, it must not be used as a diversionary tactic. Nigeria, he noted, already has constitutionally empowered institutions for auditing, investigating, and prosecuting financial crimes. “Creating parallel structures to undermine lawful investigations or discredit prosecutions is not reform; it is evasion.”
A Call for Legal Defense Over Political Noise
Showunmi concluded with a prescription for proper conduct when under investigation. “Public office is a trust. When that trust is breached, consequences follow.” The appropriate response, therefore, is not alarmism, international lobbying, or political theatrics. It is “competent legal defence and respect for due process.”
Nigeria’s Corruption Challenge in Context
Showunmi’s statements are made against the stark backdrop of Nigeria’s enduring struggle with systemic corruption. The issue permeates public services, law enforcement, the judiciary, and government, manifesting as bribery, embezzlement, and a profound lack of accountability.
International indices consistently paint a concerning picture. An August 2025 Chatham House publication reinforced that Nigeria consistently ranks among the top quarter of the world’s most corrupt countries. Specifically, the nation is ranked among the world’s 40 most corrupt on the Corruption Perceptions Index and 35th from the bottom on the World Bank’s Control of Corruption metric.
Perhaps most tellingly, Nigeria scores highly on all four metrics of The Unbundled Corruption Index, with ‘grand theft’ by political elites identified as a particularly dominant form of corruption. This context underscores why the principle of equal accountability—championed by Showunmi—is not just a legal ideal but an urgent national imperative for development and justice.