The African Democratic Congress has declared it will not abandon its leaders facing prosecution, even as it challenges the even-handedness of federal anti-corruption agencies and insists on the constitutional rights of all citizens.
The African Democratic Congress has waded into the growing controversy surrounding the prosecution of two of its prominent members, insisting that former Attorney General of the Federation Abubakar Malami and former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai are entitled to the full protection of their constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence.
In a statement issued on Tuesday by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party acknowledged that no citizen is above the law but raised serious questions about what it described as the selective application of justice by Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies. The intervention comes as both men face multiple investigations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission over allegations of financial misconduct running into hundreds of billions of naira.
“The African Democratic Congress has been monitoring the ongoing legal cases involving two of our leaders, Mr Abubakar Malami, former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice from Kebbi State, and Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, former Governor of Kaduna State,” the statement read. “As a law-abiding party, it is important to state for the record that the ADC believes no citizen, regardless of stature or past office, is above the law. However, in a constitutional democracy where the law is seen to operate selectively, it becomes imperative to insist, firmly and without apology, that justice must be applied evenly, transparently and without political calculation.”
The party’s position rests on a fundamental provision of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 36(5) explicitly states that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The ADC argues that this presumption is not a courtesy extended by the state but a binding constitutional guarantee that must be upheld regardless of the individuals involved or the gravity of allegations against them .
“They are therefore presumed innocent under the Constitution until proven otherwise in a fair and competent court of law. That presumption should not be treated as a courtesy, but as a constitutional guarantee,” the party stated.
The legal troubles facing both men have unfolded in recent weeks through separate but parallel investigations by Nigeria’s two main anti-corruption agencies.
Malami, who served as Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice throughout former President Muhammadu Buhari’s eight-year administration, was first arraigned on December 30, 2025, before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The EFCC brought a 16-count charge against him, his wife Hajia Bashir Asabe, and his son Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, alleging money laundering offences to the tune of N8,713,923,759.49 .
According to court documents, the charges include conspiracy, procuring, disguising, concealing and laundering proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. Count one of the charge alleges that between July 2022 and June 2025, Malami and his son procured Metropolitan Auto Tech Limited to conceal the unlawful origin of N1,014,848,500 paid into a Sterling Bank account. Other counts detail transactions involving Meethaq Hotels Limited and substantial sums paid through Union Bank accounts .
Following his arraignment, Justice Nwite ordered that Malami be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre. The case has since taken procedural turns, including the withdrawal of the initial trial judge, Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who recused himself on February 12, 2026, citing personal considerations. On February 27, 2026, the EFCC rearraigned the defendants before Justice Joyce Abdul-Malik on an amended 16-count charge, maintaining the core allegations of N8.7billion diversion while correcting typographical errors that had inflated certain figures from millions to billions .
El-Rufai’s case has followed a different trajectory. The former Kaduna State governor voluntarily honoured an EFCC invitation on February 16, 2026, and remained in the commission’s custody until the night of February 18. He was subsequently transferred to ICPC custody for further investigation over alleged financial misconduct during his eight-year tenure as governor from 2015 to 2023 .
The ICPC confirmed his transfer in a late-night statement on February 18, signed by its spokesperson J. Okor Odey. “The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission writes to state that Malam Nasiru El-Rufai, the former Governor of Kaduna state is in our custody as at close of work today Wednesday the 18th day of February, 2026. Malam Nasiru El-Rufai is in the custody of the Commission in connection with investigations,” the statement read .
The investigations against El-Rufai are believed to be linked to financial transactions and projects executed during his governorship. In 2024, the Kaduna State House of Assembly had indicted him over alleged diversion of N423 billion and money laundering, recommending investigation by anti-graft agencies. El-Rufai has consistently denied the allegations and subsequently sued the Assembly, accusing it of attempting to damage his reputation .
Adding another layer to his legal challenges, the Department of State Services also filed a three-count charge against El-Rufai at the Federal High Court in Abuja, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026. The charges stem from comments he made during an ARISE Television interview, where he allegedly claimed that someone had intercepted the phone communications of National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu. The DSS accused him of unlawfully intercepting communications, an offence said to violate the Cybercrimes Act and the Nigerian Communications Act .
The ADC’s intervention does not focus on the guilt or innocence of either man. Instead, the party has directed its criticism at what it perceives as inconsistencies in how anti-corruption agencies pursue cases against opposition figures compared to individuals associated with the ruling All Progressives Congress.
In its statement, the party urged Nigerians to examine how other high-profile cases have been handled, drawing a pointed comparison to recent proceedings before the courts.
“Nigerians should consider a recent high-profile case. At its centre are grave allegations of passport forgery, international conspiracy, impersonation and the alleged use of a disputed international passport in support of a property claim in London. These are not minor procedural questions. They touch on issues of national integrity and international credibility. Yet, in that case, the accused persons pleaded not guilty, were granted bail, and the matter is proceeding expeditiously before the court,” the statement said.
The party did not name specific individuals but appeared to reference cases involving figures associated with the ruling party who have faced allegations but have not experienced the same pre-trial detention or inter-agency transfers.
“In contrast, in the cases involving Abubakar Malami and Nasir El-Rufai, we have witnessed prolonged custodial movements, inter-agency transfers and processes that appear to precede, rather than follow, fully crystallised prosecution,” the ADC added.
This is not the first time the ADC has raised such concerns. In August 2025, Abdullahi, then serving as interim National Publicity Secretary, issued a statement accusing the EFCC of carrying out selective investigations in the guise of fighting corruption, describing it as a sign of dictatorship. The party had alleged that the anti-corruption agency was reopening closed cases and targeting opposition members while investigations into ruling party allies quietly faded away .
“It does appear that in today’s Nigeria, one’s guilt or innocence depends on one’s party membership, not evidence,” the party had stated at the time, warning that public trust in anti-corruption institutions was being eroded .
Following El-Rufai’s detention in February, Hajiya Hassana Shuaibu Dada, the party’s Assistant National Youth Leader for North Central, issued a separate statement condemning what she described as politically driven, selective prosecutions. She accused the EFCC of orchestrating these actions as deliberate attempts to undermine the ADC, which she said poses a growing challenge to the APC .
“The selective prosecutions of our leaders, Hon. Abubakar Malami and Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, through the EFCC are clearly politically motivated efforts to weaken the ADC because we represent a real alternative to the ruling party,” Dada stated .
The ADC’s concerns reflect a wider debate that has followed Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies since their establishment. The EFCC, created in 2003, and the ICPC, established in 2000, were designed as independent bodies to investigate and prosecute corruption cases without fear or favour. However, critics have long alleged that successive administrations have used these agencies to target political opponents while shielding allies.
The current cases against Malami and El-Rufai have intensified these criticisms, particularly given the political timing. Both men were prominent figures in the APC-led administration of former President Buhari before their recent defection to the ADC. Malami served as a key member of the federal cabinet for eight years, while El-Rufai governed Kaduna State under the APC platform.
Their defection to the opposition ADC ahead of future elections has placed them squarely in the crosshairs of anti-corruption agencies, according to their supporters. Speaking on Arise Television on February 19, Abdullahi articulated this concern, stating that national institutions funded by public money to fight corruption “appear to be only efficient and effective when opposition figures are involved.”
“We are concerned that national institutions are being turned into partisan agents,” he said, while maintaining that the party was not taking a position on the guilt or innocence of the individuals involved .
The allegations of selective justice have also drawn reactions from civil society. Following Malami’s initial arraignment in December 2025, a coalition of Northern youth organisations accused President Bola Tinubu’s administration of using the EFCC as a political weapon to intimidate and silence opposition voices, particularly from the North. The Coalition of Northern Youth Groups claimed at a press conference in Kaduna that the EFCC’s actions reflected “a disturbing pattern of institutional bias and selective justice”
The coalition specifically questioned why some Southern political figures facing corruption allegations were not subjected to similar treatment, naming former ministers and governors it alleged had escaped scrutiny .
Central to the ADC’s position is Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence to every person charged with a criminal offence. This provision, contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights, establishes a basic principle of criminal justice: the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and an accused person is entitled to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law .
The provision states: “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.” A proviso adds that nothing in this section shall invalidate any law imposing upon an accused person the burden of proving particular facts, but the fundamental presumption remains a constitutional safeguard .
The ADC’s invocation of this provision reflects a deliberate strategy to frame the debate around the two men’s legal challenges not as a matter of political sympathy but as a question of constitutional rights. By emphasising that Malami and El-Rufai are “first citizens of Nigeria before they are opposition leaders,” the party seeks to universalise their claim to fair treatment.
“At the same time, let there be no ambiguity about our position. Abubakar Malami and Nasir El-Rufai are first citizens of Nigeria before they are opposition leaders or members of the African Democratic Congress,” the party stated, adding that it would continue to stand by its members as they assert their legal rights.
The ADC’s forceful defence of its embattled leaders also carries internal political significance. Both Malami and El-Rufai are high-profile defectors whose presence in the party lends it national visibility and credibility. Abandoning them in their moment of legal trial would risk alienating other potential defectors and undermining the party’s claim to offer a genuine alternative to the ruling APC.
“We will ensure that they are not isolated, intimidated or denied the protections that every Nigerian citizen is entitled to under the law,” the party statement read. “We will never abandon our people in moments of trial. We will never leave any of our members behind.”
The statement concluded with a reaffirmation of the party’s commitment to legal process and constitutional governance, even as it maintained its criticism of enforcement patterns.
The coming weeks will determine how the legal cases against both men proceed. Malami’s case is now before Justice Abdul-Malik, with the defendants having pleaded not guilty to the amended charges and expected to reapply for bail. El-Rufai remains subject to multiple investigations, with questions outstanding about whether formal charges will be filed and, if so, before which court.
For the ADC, the cases present both a legal challenge and a political opportunity. How it navigates the tension between defending its members and maintaining credibility as a party committed to the rule of law will shape its positioning in the increasingly contested opposition space. For Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies, the cases have reopened longstanding questions about independence, selectivity, and the public perception of their work.
The party’s statement captured this duality in its closing words: “We will continue to stand by our members as they assert their legal rights. We will ensure that they are not isolated, intimidated or denied the protections that every Nigerian citizen is entitled to under the law.”
Whether that stance resonates with the broader Nigerian public may depend on the evidence presented in court and the transparency of the judicial process in the months ahead.
