The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has a legitimate and necessary role in Nigeria.
Financial crimes damage public institutions, weaken the economy and deepen the hardship suffered by ordinary citizens. The commission must therefore be empowered to investigate suspicious transactions, trace illicit funds and prosecute cases supported by credible evidence.
However, the necessity of the EFCC does not place it above the Constitution. Its importance does not confer infallibility upon its leadership. And its mandate to investigate crime cannot become an excuse to intimidate, humiliate or prematurely punish a citizen.
This is the context in which the continuing pursuit of businesswoman Aisha Achimugu must be examined.
The central issue is not whether Achimugu is too wealthy, too prominent or too influential to be investigated. She is not. No private citizen should be immune from lawful scrutiny merely because she operates successful businesses or belongs to elite social circles.
The real question is whether the actions taken against her have remained proportionate, professional and strictly connected to a legitimate investigation-or whether the matter has gradually assumed the appearance of institutional persecution. That distinction is fundamental.
An investigation seeks evidence. Persecution seeks submission. An investigation respects legal boundaries. Persecution treats those boundaries as inconveniences.
An investigation allows the courts to determine guilt. Persecution attempts to inflict punishment through detention, public humiliation, commercial disruption and reputational damage before a final judgment has been delivered.
Achimugu’s recent public appeal suggests that she believes the commission’s actions have extended beyond an ordinary financial investigation. She has portrayed herself as a target of sustained institutional hostility and has raised concerns about her safety, her family, her businesses and her investments.
Her allegations do not automatically prove persecution. They must be assessed objectively and alongside EFCC’s explanation. Nevertheless, a responsible public institution cannot dismiss such claims merely because they come from a person it is investigating.
The more powerful the institution, the greater its obligation to answer allegations of abuse transparently.
The Presumption of Innocence Must Have Practical Meaning
Nigeria’s Constitution presumes an accused person innocent until guilt is established by a competent court. This principle means more than allowing a defendant to enter a courtroom and plead not guilty.
It also means that the conduct of state institutions must not effectively pronounce a person guilty before trial.
When an investigation is accompanied by extensive publicity, sensational descriptions of disputed assets and a steady stream of damaging allegations, the public can easily be encouraged to regard suspicion as proof. That is dangerous.
A person may eventually be convicted, acquitted or partly successful in challenging the state’s case. Until the courts conclude the process, however, a law-enforcement agency should not construct a public narrative that makes an impartial hearing practically meaningless.
The EFCC should place its evidence before the courts. It should explain the transactions it considers suspicious. It should identify the laws allegedly violated. It should give Achimugu a proper opportunity to respond.
What it must avoid is creating the impression that the severity of its treatment is itself evidence of her guilt. Arrest is not conviction.
Interrogation is not conviction. The seizure of property is not necessarily a final determination of criminal liability. After all, the Court of Appeal’s recent order has lent credence to this.
And public suspicion, regardless of how widespread, is not a substitute for admissible evidence.
The Question of Proportionality
Where an investigation is lawful, the methods employed must remain proportionate.
A commission exercising powers of arrest, detention, seizure and prosecution must continually ask whether each action is reasonably necessary. It must also consider whether a less destructive measure could achieve the same lawful objective.
Could the person have been invited rather than publicly declared wanted? Could questioning have been conducted without unnecessary detention? Could assets have been preserved through court-supervised measures without paralysing legitimate businesses?
Could the commission have corrected exaggerated public narratives before they hardened into presumed facts? These questions do not prevent law enforcement. They distinguish professional law enforcement from the reckless exercise of coercive power.
A businessperson under investigation may employ hundreds of people, who have nothing to do with the alleged offence. Her companies may have suppliers, creditors, partners and investors whose livelihoods depend upon their continued operation.
If state action destroys those businesses before the allegation is finally determined, the consequences extend far beyond the individual under investigation. The process itself becomes punishment. That is precisely why restraint is not weakness. It is an essential component of justice.
A case in point is a popular Lagos chain store, Hubmart, killed by the EFCC because it was investigating its supposed owner and hundreds of people were by their indiscretion thrown into the labour market. What was wrong with government taking over the business and running it just to keep the workers in their employment.
Selective Intensity and Public Confidence
One reason the Achimugu matter has generated suspicion is the apparent intensity with which it has been pursued.
Nigeria has no shortage of unresolved allegations involving politically exposed persons, government contracts, public procurement and the management of state resources.
Citizens regularly observe powerful former officials moving freely in society while cases against them remain unresolved for years.
Against that background, an especially aggressive campaign against a private businesswoman inevitably raises questions.
Why this level of institutional attention? Why this degree of public exposure? Why does the case appear to attract an energy that many politically sensitive investigations do not receive?
These questions do not establish that Achimugu is innocent. Nor do they prove that the EFCC chairman has a personal grievance against her.
But selective intensity can damage public confidence even when the underlying investigation is justified.
Justice must not only be done. Enforcement priorities must also be capable of rational explanation. If the EFCC applies extraordinary pressure to one individual while appearing hesitant around politically connected figures, the public may reasonably suspect that factors other than evidence are shaping its conduct.
The commission must therefore demonstrate that its approach is consistent with how it handles comparable cases.
Leadership Requires Emotional Intelligence
The chairman of the EFCC, Ola Olukoyede, bears responsibility not only for the legal work of the commission but also for its institutional temperament.
A chairman must know when persistence becomes overreach. He must recognise when public criticism requires explanation rather than retaliation. He must be able to distinguish resistance to an investigation from an attack on his personal authority.
That is where emotional intelligence becomes indispensable. A leader lacking emotional discipline can transform an ordinary dispute into an institutional battle. He may begin to interpret every legal challenge, public statement or criticism as a personal affront.
Once that happens, the immense powers of the commission risk being deployed to defend the ego of its chairman rather than the integrity of the law.
There is no conclusive public evidence that Olukoyede is personally motivated against Achimugu. It would therefore be irresponsible to assert personal vendetta as an established fact. Yet the appearance of personalisation is itself a problem.
A public institution must act in a manner that does not reasonably create the impression of obsession, hostility or vengeance. Its chairman should not merely be impartial; his conduct should make that impartiality visible.
The EFCC can dispel suspicions by allowing evidence and court proceedings to speak for the institution. It should avoid inflammatory language, unnecessary publicity and any action that could be interpreted as a response to Achimugu’s public criticism.
Court Orders Must Be Obeyed
The most important safeguard against law-enforcement excess is judicial supervision. Where a court issues an order affecting detention, bail, access to counsel or the preservation of assets, the EFCC must comply promptly unless a higher court lawfully suspends or overturns that decision.
An agency cannot claim to defend the rule of law while treating unfavourable judicial directives as optional.
Compliance is especially important in a controversial investigation. Any suggestion that the commission delayed, circumvented or resisted a valid court order would reinforce the perception that the agency is interested in domination rather than justice.
The commission must hold itself to the same legal discipline it demands from citizens.
Public Power is Temporary
Olukoyede should also remember that the office of EFCC chairman is temporary. Nuhu Ribadu, Farida Waziri, Ibrahim Lamorde, Ibrahim Magu, Mohammed Umar Abba and Abdulrasheed Bawa all occupied positions of great influence within the commission. None remained there permanently.
Their varied departures demonstrate a simple truth about Nigerian public life: authority can disappear quickly, and the official who exercises state power today may depend upon constitutional protection tomorrow. This is not a threat. It is a reason for humility.
Every chairman should establish precedents he would consider fair if they were later applied to him. Would he accept public condemnation before trial?
Would he accept the destruction of his reputation on the basis of disputed allegations?
Would he accept prolonged restrictions on his liberty while the courts were still considering his case?
Would he be satisfied if the state treated every attempt to defend himself as evidence of guilt?
The law must be administered in a way that its administrators would willingly endure.
The Way Forward
The EFCC should continue any investigation supported by lawful grounds. It should not withdraw merely because Achimugu has appealed to public sympathy. At the same time, it must clearly separate investigation from intimidation.
It should disclose the lawful basis of its material actions, comply promptly with court orders, prevent misleading publicity and avoid unnecessary disruption to legitimate commercial activity.
For Achimugu, she must answer credible allegations through the judicial process. Her public appeal cannot replace documentary explanations, witness testimony or legal argument.
Ultimately, the matter should be resolved through evidence rather than institutional power or public sentiment.
The EFCC does not prove its strength by showing that it can overwhelm a citizen. Its strength is demonstrated when it has the power to do so but chooses instead to remain disciplined by law.
That is the boundary Olukoyede must not cross.
The commission may investigate Aisha Achimugu. It may prosecute her where evidence justifies prosecution. It may seek lawful orders concerning disputed assets.
But it must never allow the investigation to become personal. Once public power is used to punish a person before the courts have completed their work, law enforcement ceases to protect justice and begins to threaten it.