{EDITORIAL} Finally, Tinubu ends up achieving political prisoner in El-Rufai, an offence once counted against Abacha
Or how does one describe an acclaimed democratic experience where bail is now treated as a privilege rather than a right? That this is happening through stringent conditions set by a critical institution of democracy—the court—makes the situation even more troubling. It has created a snag in the image of the Tinubu administration and raises questions about the democratic credentials of a country much touted as the most important Black Nation in the world.
The political journey of Nigeria has produced another striking irony: an administration that came to power amid promises of democratic consolidation is now facing allegations that a former governor and prominent opposition figure, Nasir El-Rufai, is being subjected to politically motivated persecution.
For years, the detention or persecution of political opponents was among the practices critics associated with military rule, particularly during the regime of the late General Sani Abacha. The return of such allegations under a civilian administration therefore raises serious questions about the state of democratic freedoms and political tolerance in Nigeria.
El-Rufai, a former governor of Kaduna State and a prominent political figure, has become embroiled in a series of legal and political controversies since leaving office. Supporters of the former governor have described the actions against him as politically motivated, while government authorities have maintained that the issues involved are matters of law, accountability and due process.
The distinction is important. A person facing prosecution does not automatically become a political prisoner. That characterisation depends on whether the legal process is genuinely independent or is being used principally to punish political opposition.
That is precisely why the El-Rufai case deserves close scrutiny.
Democracy is not measured only by elections. It is also measured by how governments treat their opponents, critics and former officials. Where legitimate allegations exist, they should be investigated and prosecuted transparently. Where political persecution is alleged, the courts and other institutions must provide credible safeguards against abuse.
Nigeria has experienced the consequences of political intolerance before. The lesson from that history should be that democratic governments must be particularly careful not to reproduce practices they once condemned under authoritarian rule.
Whether El-Rufai ultimately meets the definition of a political prisoner is a matter that should be determined by evidence and due process, not political slogans. But the controversy itself is a warning that the Tinubu administration must ensure that the rule of law is seen to operate independently of political differences.
The standard should be simple: political opponents may be investigated, but they must never be persecuted because they are opponents.
That is one of the fundamental tests of any democracy.
Or how does one describe an acclaimed democratic experience where bail is now treated as a privilege rather than a right?
That this is happening through stringent conditions set by a critical institution of democracy—the court—makes the situation even more troubling. It has created a snag in the image of the Tinubu administration and raises questions about the democratic credentials of a country much touted as the most important Black Nation in the world.
For a democracy to command respect, its institutions must not only follow due process but also be seen to uphold fairness, justice and equality before the law. The El-Rufai controversy therefore goes beyond one politician. It touches on the broader question of how Nigeria treats dissent and political opposition under democratic rule.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH A DOCUMENTARY ON EL-RUFAI
