Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

“Tinubu’s Government, the EFCC and the Strategic Undermining of Opposition Governors”.

 

In a striking indictment of Nigeria’s current political reality, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State declared that “you cannot speak truth to power in this dispensation”, directly accusing the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of intolerance for dissent and an erosion of democratic norms.

Makinde’s remarks (made during a public event in Ibadan on January 25, 2026) were more than a local governor’s lament. They crystallised a mounting national frustration: that Nigeria’s political landscape has tilted dangerously toward executive overreach, institutional capture and political engineering.

This narrative is not isolated. Across Nigeria, governors from opposition parties have defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in numbers unprecedented in the nation’s democratic history. Critics argue that these defections are not merely voluntary political choices, but part of a strategic pressure campaign leveraging federal power and institutions to fracture opposition influence.

At its centre lies Nigeria’s principal anti-graft agency – the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The EFCC: Anti-Graft Agency or Political Instrument? Founded to combat corruption, the EFCC’s constitutional mandate is to investigate and prosecute financial and economic crimes across public and private sectors. Its legal independence is enshrined in statute and it has historically pursued high-profile cases, including recovery of nearly $500 million in illicit assets in a single year, demonstrating its capacity for tackling corruption.

However, critics now claim that under the Tinubu administration, the EFCC’s prosecutorial power is being perceived (if not deployed) as a political instrument.

Opposition leaders, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and coalition parties such as the African Democratic Congress (ADC), have publicly accused the federal government of using anti-corruption agencies to intimidate opposition figures and governors, effectively pressuring them into aligning with the APC.

In a statement released in December 2025, opposition figures alleged that institutions such as the EFCC, the Nigerian Police and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission were being selectively wielded to weaken political competitors rather than combat financial crime impartially.

This is not merely rhetorical noise. The opposition’s grievances centre on several observable patterns:

Reopened or New Investigations Against Opposition Figures: The ADC pointed to recent abnormal reactivation of long-dormant cases or new inquiries into financial activities involving senior opposition politicians. These, they argue, often arise shortly before critical elections or political realignments.

Alleged Differential Treatment: According to opponents of the current administration, individuals who have defected to the APC appear less likely to face sustained legal scrutiny or prosecution in EFCC proceedings, even in cases of credible allegations of mismanagement.

Timing of Actions: The timing of certain high-profile investigations, emerging ahead of the 2027 general elections, reinforces perceptions that anti-graft measures are tailored to political cycles rather than legal merit.

The EFCC and Presidency have publicly denied these allegations, insisting that the commission operates independently and pursues corruption irrespective of political affiliation and that Nigeria’s democratic freedoms (including party choice and mobility) remain intact.

Yet the perception of bias, once systemic, is hard to erase, especially when political actors deploy powerful state machinery with strategic timing and selective intensity.

Defections and Power Realignment: A Democracy at Risk? Since 2023 and particularly through 2025, a remarkable number of state governors and senior political leaders have crossed over from opposition parties (notably the Peoples Democratic Party – PDP) to the APC. Though defections are normal in Nigeria’s fluid political system, the scale and speed in recent years are historically noteworthy, raising critical questions about underlying incentives.

The SaharaWeeklyNG reported Makinde’s comments within the broader context of a political climate where dissenting voices face greater obstacles than at any time in recent democratic memory.

Governors who remain in opposition find themselves squeezed between growing federal assertiveness and dwindling political capital. Some analysts argue that the combination of federal resource control, political appointments and influence over public agencies exerts tangible pressure on subnational leaders to align with the ruling party for political survival. This dynamic, they contend, undermines competitive party politics and weakens Nigeria’s multiparty democracy.

Speaking Truth to Power: What Makinde’s Critique Exposes. Governor Makinde’s core grievance (that it is increasingly difficult, perhaps perilous, to speak truth to power) resonates widely among civil society actors, political analysts and democratic advocates:

“YOU CANNOT SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER IN THIS DISPENSATION,” Makinde declared, specifically citing the government’s handling of contentious tax reform bills as an example where dissent was neither welcomed nor transparently debated.

Makinde’s critique reflects deeper structural concerns:

Exclusion of Key Stakeholders: Opposition leaders and state executives report being marginalised from meaningful consultation on national policies affecting federal-state relations, revenue sharing and fiscal reforms.

Institutional Intimidation: The perception that state politicians become targets of federal legal scrutiny after taking firm oppositional stances (real or perceived) discourages robust democratic debate.

Erosion of Opposition Space: A symbiotic effect of party defections and institutional pressure is a shrinking viable space for genuine political opposition, weakening checks and balances essential to democratic governance.

A respected political scientist, Dr. Aisha Bello of the University of Lagos, recently argued that “when opposition becomes fraught with state leverage instead of ideological competition, the very foundation of democratic contestation collapses,” adding that “a government that shies away from criticism risks inversion into autocracy.”

Another expert, Prof. Chinedu Eze, former dean of political studies at Ahmadu Bello University, warned that “selective use of anti-corruption agencies as political tools corrodes public trust and ultimately delegates justice into the hands of incumbents rather than independent courts.” These observations echo growing public skepticism.

The Way Forward: Strengthening Democracy and Institutions. Nigeria’s path forward depends on restoring confidence in democratic norms and institutional independence.

Transparent EFCC Processes: Civil society groups and legal scholars are advocating for enhanced transparency in anti-graft investigations, including clear prosecutorial thresholds and independent audits of case initiation and closures.

Judicial Oversight: Strengthening the judiciary’s capacity and independence is critical to ensuring that allegations of political weaponisation do not go unchecked. Courts must remain the ultimate arbiters of evidence and guilt.

Political Reforms: Advocates demand reforms to party financing, federal-state fiscal relations, and consultation mechanisms to reduce incentives for defections driven by federal resource leverage.

Public Engagement: A more informed and engaged civil society, anchored by independent media and civic education, must hold both government and opposition accountable for adherence to democratic principles.

Beyond The Present Moment.

Governor Makinde’s assertion that it is no longer tenable to “speak truth to power” under the current administration reflects unsettling trends in Nigeria’s evolving democratic landscape. While the EFCC and the Presidency maintain that anti-corruption efforts are independent and constitutionally grounded, opposition leaders (backed by political data and patterns of defections) argue that state power is being used to consolidate one-party dominance and undermine political pluralism.

At this critical juncture, Nigeria must choose between entrenching competitive democracy or sliding toward a political monopoly where dissent is subdued, institutions compromised, and power concentrated.

For Nigeria’s democratic ideals to survive (and thrive) its leaders and citizens must ensure that speaking truth to power remains not a perilous act of defiance but an honoured pillar of national life.