by Mohammed Bello Doka
21 July, 2026.
Does President Tinubu or his Yoruba-dominated Federal Government have the moral authority to lecture anyone on corruption, justice, equity or fairness?
That question looms large as Nigerians watch two high-profile cases unfold. On one side is Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, former Governor of Kaduna State, who voluntarily returned to Nigeria and honoured an invitation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), only to become entangled in inter-agency transfers, stringent bail conditions and prolonged detention. On the other is Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew, the alleged mastermind behind a socalled phantom agency that infiltrated the highest levels of government, secured Central Bank accounts and obtained a ₦1.3 billion budget allocation, yet was granted administrative bail before charges were filed.
The contrast raises a fundamental question: what does justice mean under this administration? Is justice blind, or is it influenced by identity and place of origin?
Consider El-Rufai. Since February 18, 2026, he has been moved between the EFCC, the DSS and the ICPC. After voluntarily honouring the EFCC’s invitation and being granted administrative bail, he was immediately taken into ICPC custody. The DSS later filed a three-count charge over comments made during a television interview, while the ICPC arraigned him on nine counts bordering on alleged fraud and abuse of office.
Although the Federal High Court in Abuja granted him ₦100 million bail, the conditions proved exceptionally difficult to satisfy. His surety must be a Level 17 federal civil servant who owns property in Maitama or Asokoro, submit original Certificates of Occupancy and tax clearance certificates. El-Rufai was also required to produce a letter of attestation from the Chairman of the Kaduna State Traditional Rulers Council, despite its apparent lack of relevance to a federal criminal trial.
The Centre for Community Development and Civic Enlightenment condemned the treatment, warning that if the rights of a former governor and minister could be denied so openly, “what then becomes the fate of the common man and the downtrodden?” The African Democratic Congress (ADC) called for an urgent review of the “punitive and disproportionate bail conditions,” arguing that bail exists to secure attendance at trial, “not to inflict punishment before conviction.” Human rights activist Ibrahim Garba Wala also warned that allowing El-Rufai to “suffer a silent, systematic breakdown in custody under the guise of impossible bail” would amount to “the formal burial of constitutional liberty in Nigeria.”
His health also became an issue. His lawyers sought bail on medical grounds, presenting a report claiming he had advanced metastatic prostate cancer. The ICPC countered with a letter from the Chief Medical Director of the National Hospital, Abuja, stating that the report was fraudulent and that El-Rufai had never been treated there. The court rejected the application, and he has remained in custody for over five months, except for a brief release in March to bury his mother.
Now compare this with Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew. He allegedly forged a presidential appointment letter bearing the forged signature of the Chief of Staff to the President. Using those documents, he allegedly secured official recognition, diplomatic support, visa facilitation, office space in the Federal Secretariat, multiple Central Bank accounts and a ₦1.3 billion allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act. He was photographed with the Vice President and other senior officials, assigned police security and cleared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to meet diplomats.
Yet after his arrest on October 27, 2025, the police detained him for 23 days before granting him administrative bail on November 19. Charges were not filed until November 27, eight days after his release. He therefore left police custody without any pending charges while his phantom agency remained in the national budget.
When the case eventually came before the court, he failed to appear on four consecutive occasions. His lawyer claimed he feared for his life and had written to President Tinubu. Justice Mohammed Umar responded: “The court will help him be alive.” A bench warrant was issued on July 14, 2026, and he was later rearrested in Osun State.
A man accused of forging presidential documents, infiltrating the State House, obtaining Central Bank accounts and securing a billion-naira budget allocation was released before charges were filed and remained free for months.
A former governor who voluntarily submitted himself to the authorities over bailable offences remains in detention because he cannot satisfy bail conditions widely criticised as excessive.
What explains this disparity? Is it merely coincidence that El-Rufai, a Fulani from Kaduna, faces such treatment under a government many critics describe as dominated by Yoruba interests, while Adeyemi, whose name and origin suggest South-West ancestry, received far more lenient treatment? Is it also coincidence that the forged signature belonged to Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila and that the President who ordered the investigation, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is also Yoruba?
This is not about whether El-Rufai is guilty or innocent. That is for the courts to determine. The issue is whether the justice system applies the law equally and whether bail exists to secure attendance at trial or to keep an accused person in detention despite a court order.
The ADC has argued that “the actions of the ICPC and the Tinubu government have, for months now, gone beyond the realm of law enforcement. Their actions have become an assault on the Constitution of 200 million Nigerians, on human dignity, and on the most basic principles of justice and human rights.” The party added: “Today it is El-Rufai. Tomorrow it could be any Nigerian whose only offence is to disagree with those who wield power.”
The PFIPC scandal suggests an institutional failure that allowed a phantom agency to obtain budgetary allocation, Central Bank accounts, diplomatic recognition and police protection. The El-Rufai case raises concerns about a justice system in which a defendant charged with bailable offences remains in prolonged detention while another accused of a major fraud enjoyed administrative bail before prosecution.
Together, these cases raise difficult questions about fairness, equal treatment and the rule of law. They also invite scrutiny of whether justice is being applied consistently, regardless of status, ethnicity or political affiliation.
The question is no longer whether the Tinubu administration can lecture others on corruption or justice. The real question is whether Nigerians are witnessing equal justice under the law or a system of double standards. This is only the tip of the iceberg. More cases will follow, exposing how Tinubu’s Yoruba kinsmen were allegedly shielded by the system while they continue to preach equity, justice and equality before the law.
Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via bellodoka82@gmail.com
Leave a comment