Otunba Segun Showunmi, convener of The Alternative, has said the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is constitutionally obligated to investigate allegations of economic and financial crimes, insisting that political status offers no immunity from the law.
Showunmi said the Nigerian Constitution makes no exemptions for opposition figures, former public officeholders, or political alliances, stressing that accountability applies equally to all citizens.
His comments follow accusations by opposition leaders, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, ex-Senate President David Mark, and former Anambra State governor Peter Obi, that the Federal Government is using the EFCC, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and the Nigeria Police to harass political opponents.
The opposition figures, in a joint statement titled “Anti-Corruption, Not Anti-Opposition,” argued that anti-graft agencies are increasingly seen as instruments of selective justice and political intimidation, warning of an alleged plan to weaken opposition parties and entrench the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
The controversy comes amid ongoing EFCC investigations involving several opposition figures, including a probe of former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, over alleged corruption.
Responding to the claims, presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga urged politicians to stop discrediting national institutions, maintaining that the EFCC operates independently and that anyone with a case to answer should face investigators with confidence.
In a statement on Monday, Showunmi warned that portraying investigations as persecution threatens Nigeria’s democracy, describing such claims as attempts to pre-empt judicial processes through public pressure.
“Opposition is not a licence to steal, and it is not a shield against accountability,” he said, adding that investigations and prosecutions conducted within the law do not violate fundamental rights.
Showunmi concluded that those who are innocent would be cleared by the courts, while others must face the consequences of due process, urging political actors to rely on legal defence rather than what he described as “alarmism and political noise.”