As Government Prosecutes Alleged Corruption, Nigerians Deserve Equal Transparency From Those in Power
By Sanusi Muhammad
Nigeria’s fight against corruption can command public confidence only when it is seen to apply equally to everyone, irrespective of political affiliation, social status or proximity to power.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration has repeatedly expressed its commitment to fighting corruption, with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) pursuing investigations and prosecutions involving former governors, ministers and other politically exposed persons.
There is nothing wrong with investigating or prosecuting anyone reasonably suspected of corruption. Indeed, Nigerians expect public institutions to investigate allegations of financial misconduct and ensure that anyone found culpable faces the law.
But there is another side to the conversation that cannot simply be ignored: transparency must begin with those who exercise the highest authority in the country.
For many years, numerous properties, companies and investments have been publicly associated with President Tinubu by political opponents, commentators and publications.
Among businesses and properties that have at various times been linked to him are media organisations, hotels, real estate developments, revenue-consulting businesses and other commercial interests in Lagos.
Some circulating lists have gone much further, alleging interests in Oriental Hotel, Lekki Concession Company, Alpha Beta Consulting, Oando Plc, shopping complexes, prime Lagos properties and several other investments.
However, an important distinction must be made.
Many of these claims remain allegations and should not be presented as conclusively established ownership without documentary evidence.
President Tinubu has himself publicly denied ownership of some of the properties attributed to him, including Lagos Oriental Hotel. Consequently, anyone demanding accountability must equally recognise the difference between allegations circulating in the public domain and ownership established through corporate, land or official asset records.
The same caution applies to Oando Plc.
The fact that Adewale “Wale” Tinubu is a prominent executive and shareholder associated with Oando does not, by itself, establish that President Bola Tinubu owns the company. Any allegation of beneficial ownership must therefore be supported by credible corporate documentation rather than assumption or political association.
Nevertheless, the persistence of questions surrounding the President’s wealth raises a legitimate broader issue: how transparent is Nigeria’s system of asset declaration for its highest public office holders?
Nigerians should not have to depend on rumours, politically generated lists or unverifiable social-media posts to determine the assets and business interests of their leaders.
A credible system of governance should make it easier to distinguish fact from fiction.
If allegations about properties and businesses attributed to a public official are false, greater transparency provides perhaps the strongest answer. If they are true and the assets were legitimately acquired and properly declared, transparency equally protects the public official from speculation.
The anti-corruption campaign must therefore be founded on three principles: equality before the law, due process and transparency.
Those being investigated by the EFCC are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court. Arrest or prosecution should never automatically be interpreted as proof of corruption.
Likewise, political office should never become a shield against legitimate scrutiny.
The central question is therefore bigger than President Tinubu or any individual politician.
Can Nigeria build an anti-corruption system in which the same standards of accountability demanded from former governors, ministers and opposition politicians are equally applicable to those currently exercising power?
That is the standard Nigerians deserve.
The country cannot successfully fight corruption through selective outrage, unverified allegations or politically motivated prosecutions. Neither can corruption be defeated when questions about the wealth and business interests of powerful public officials are dismissed simply because those officials control the machinery of government.
What Nigeria needs is institutional transparency.
Public officials should be prepared to account for assets legitimately acquired, while anti-corruption agencies should investigate credible allegations without fear, favour or political consideration.
At the same time, Nigerians, journalists and commentators have a responsibility not to transform allegations into facts without evidence.
The fight against corruption will gain legitimacy when a citizen can confidently say that whether one is a president, governor, minister, opposition leader or ordinary civil servant, the law asks the same questions and applies the same standards.
Until Nigeria achieves that level of institutional equality, questions about selective justice will continue to overshadow even genuine anti-corruption efforts.
Sanusi Muhammad is a commentator on national issues.
Published by Alphapressmedia
