ARRESTS, DETENTIONS AND DEMOCRACY: WHY NIGERIA MUST END THE POLITICS OF INTIMIDATION

 ARRESTS, DETENTIONS AND DEMOCRACY: WHY NIGERIA MUST END THE POLITICS OF INTIMIDATION

By Tijjani Sarki

Good Governance Advocate & Public Policy Analyst

Nigeria is once again confronted with a troubling political pattern the dramatic arrest and prolonged detention of opposition figures under the banner of investigation. The recent case involving Nasir El-Rufai has reignited national debate about the use of state institutions in politically sensitive moments.

Let me state from the outset: accountability is non-negotiable. No public official should be shielded from lawful scrutiny. However, as a public policy analyst, I am equally convinced that the integrity of the process is as important as the allegation itself.

 When enforcement appears selective, excessive, or procedurally questionable, institutions risk losing the moral authority they seek to assert.

Malam El-Rufai voluntarily honoured an invitation from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). He was subsequently transferred to the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), while charges were reportedly filed by the Department of State Services (DSS). Legal disputes over bail, remand orders, and search warrants are now before the Federal High Court.

Regardless of the legal outcome, the optics matter. In governance, perception shapes legitimacy.

This is not an isolated development. Nigeria has witnessed similar episodes across administrations and political divides.

One notable example is Yusuf Bala Usman, the former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS). He was arrested and detained for weeks by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over corruption allegations while he was publicly engaged in a fierce institutional battle over reforms within the NHIS. The prolonged detention raised serious public questions about due process, administrative conflicts, and whether reformist positions had collided with entrenched interests.

Before that, political actors across party lines have faced similar high-profile arrests during periods of intense political contestation from the era of Olusegun Obasanjo, through Muhammadu Buhari, and now under Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Different governments. Different personalities.

Yet the same enforcement drama.

As a policy analyst, I see a structural issue, the tendency to deploy investigative and security institutions in ways that coincide with political rivalry. Whether intentional or coincidental, the pattern fuels public distrust and deepens political polarization.

The rule of law thrives on three pillars: transparency, proportionality, and independence. When arrests are dramatic, detention extended, bail delayed, and communication opaque, enforcement risks being perceived as punitive rather than investigative.

Democracies do not weaken because corruption is investigated, they weaken when citizens begin to suspect that investigations are unevenly applied.

Opposition is not a security threat. It is a constitutional necessity. It strengthens public policy by forcing scrutiny, offering alternatives, and holding leadership accountable. When dissent is repeatedly met with detention, it sends a dangerous institutional signal  that disagreement may carry personal risk.

No democracy matures under such tension.

Nigeria’s anti-corruption architecture was designed to strengthen governance, not to inflame political suspicion. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), and the Department of State Services (DSS) are critical to national stability. But their long-term effectiveness depends on public confidence.

Institutional power must be exercised with procedural precision. The 48-hour constitutional safeguard, lawful search warrants, transparent remand processes, and unrestricted access to counsel are not technicalities they are democratic guardrails.

When these guardrails appear weak, citizens begin to question the neutrality of the system itself.

And once public trust erodes, governance suffers.

As a Good Governance Advocate, I believe Nigeria must decisively break this cycle. We must move beyond crude and outdated political tactics that rely on arrest as a strategy of containment.

If allegations exist, prosecute them transparently and swiftly.

If evidence is strong, let the courts determine guilt.

If institutions are confident, they should have nothing to fear from open scrutiny.

But we must end the recurring spectacle of politically charged detentions that cast shadows over institutional credibility.

Nigeria’s democracy is too fragile to normalize intimidation.

Our leadership must demonstrate confidence, not coercion.

Our institutions must inspire trust, not fear.

The true test of democratic strength is not how power treats allies, it is how it treats critics.

Until we internalize that principle, our politics will remain trapped in a cycle of suspicion and confrontation.

Nigeria deserves institutions that are firm yet fair.

Decisive yet lawful.

Powerful yet accountable.

That is the democracy I stand for.

Tijjani Sarki

Good Governance Advocate & Public Policy Analyst

can be reach via

responsivecitizensinitiative@gmail.com

23rd February,2023