Connect with us
EDITORIAL The strength of a democracy is not measured by the eloquence of its Constitution but by the willingness of those in power to obey both its letter and spirit. Elections are not merely contests between political parties; they are tests of whether the institutions of the state belong to all citizens or have become instruments of partisan advantage. That is why the reports surrounding the alleged restriction of an Osun State Government account by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), coming barely days before the August 15 governorship election, deserve the closest public scrutiny. Whether the reported action was legally justified or not is ultimately a matter for due process. Yet timing matters in politics. Where enforcement actions coincide with an intensely contested election, public confidence inevitably comes under strain. The EFCC has every constitutional responsibility to investigate financial crimes wherever credible evidence exists. No governor, minister or public official should enjoy immunity from lawful investigation. However, anti-corruption agencies equally carry the burden of demonstrating that their actions are free from political calculation. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. This is the challenge confronting Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Across Africa, incumbency often carries advantages that extend beyond electoral popularity. Control over state institutions has too frequently been perceived as an extension of political power. Whether in Uganda under President Yoweri Museveni or in several other African democracies, allegations of state institutions being drawn into partisan contests have repeatedly generated controversy and weakened public trust. Nigeria cannot afford to travel the same road. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has built much of his political reputation on democratic activism and progressive politics. That history imposes an even greater obligation on his administration to ensure that every institution under the Federal Government operates with visible impartiality, especially during elections. The greatest legacy any democratic leader can leave is not merely electoral victory for his party but stronger institutions capable of outliving political interests. The reported developments in Osun therefore raise questions that deserve clear answers rather than partisan rhetoric. Was the reported account restriction based on ongoing investigations initiated long before the election season? Was due process followed? Why did such action reportedly coincide with the final stretch of an election campaign? Transparency remains the surest antidote to suspicion. Equally disturbing is the growing perception that many independent institutions increasingly find themselves at the centre of political controversies. Whether involving security agencies, anti-corruption bodies or electoral institutions, democracy suffers whenever public confidence in institutional neutrality begins to erode. Once citizens conclude that state power has become an electoral weapon, the legitimacy of election outcomes inevitably comes under question, irrespective of who wins. This editorial makes no pronouncement on the guilt or innocence of any public official, nor does it suggest that anti-corruption investigations should cease because elections are approaching. Rather, it insists that enforcement actions must remain demonstrably independent of political considerations. The credibility of both the investigation and the election depends upon it. The Osun governorship race should be determined by voters not by administrative actions, financial restrictions, institutional controversies or perceptions of federal influence. The campaign promises of the APC candidate, Asiwaju Munirudeen Bola Oyebamiji, deserve to be evaluated by the electorate on their own merits. If his message of competence, merit-based governance and economic development truly resonates with the people of Osun, then the ballot box, not the machinery of the state should validate that mandate. Conversely, if Governor Ademola Adeleke retains the confidence of the electorate, that verdict must equally be respected. Democracy loses its moral authority whenever politicians seek victory through means other than persuasion. History offers a sobering reminder that political power is temporary, while institutions and justice endure. Every administration eventually becomes accountable, not only before the law but before history and the people whose trust it was elected to serve. Governments that weaken democratic norms for immediate political gain often discover that the precedents they create become burdens for future generations. Those entrusted with public office should remember that authority is never absolute. Every decision carries consequences. Every abuse of power diminishes the very institutions upon which future governments will depend. Every attempt to tilt the democratic playing field weakens the Republic itself. As Osun prepares to vote, all actors, the Federal Government, the Osun State Government, the EFCC, security agencies, the electoral commission, political parties and their supporters must recognise that the credibility of the election is more valuable than the victory of any candidate. The true winner on August 15 should not simply be a political party. It must be Nigerian democracy itself
Nobody talks seriously about the menace of corruption and corporate fraud in Nigeria because those who should and can talk about them authoritatively and genuinely are...
