The recent arrest of former governor Nasir El-Rufai’s personal doctor raises concerns about due process in the operations of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
Development Diaries reports that the ICPC accused El-Rufai of breaching the conditions of a medical trip and arrested his personal doctor, prompting questions about whether the commission is holding individuals accountable for their own actions or for their association with a politically exposed person.
What offence is the doctor alleged to have committed under Nigerian law? If the allegation relates to El-Rufai’s actions, what legal basis justified arresting another individual?
The questions become even more important because Nigerian courts have previously granted defendants permission to travel abroad for medical treatment through lawful judicial processes.
A former managing director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), for example, was allowed to travel after a court temporarily released his passport. Citizens therefore deserve to know whether the same legal standards are being applied consistently or whether different rules now apply depending on the identity of the person involved.
The credibility of anti-corruption enforcement depends as much on fairness as it does on convictions. The ICPC cannot expect public confidence while leaving unanswered questions about the legal foundation of an arrest that has attracted national attention.
The agency should clearly state the offence allegedly committed by the doctor, while the judiciary has a responsibility to ensure that every stage of the proceedings complies with constitutional guarantees of due process. The attorney-general also has a duty to ensure that investigative agencies apply the law consistently and without political bias.
Section 35 of the Nigerian constitution guarantees every person’s right to personal liberty, while Section 36 guarantees a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence. Those rights belong to every Nigerian regardless of political affiliation or personal relationship.
If a doctor has been arrested, he is entitled to know the offence for which he is being investigated and to have that allegation tested in court rather than in the court of public opinion.
The consequences of weakening that principle will not stop with politicians. Powerful public figures can hire senior lawyers, attract media attention and defend themselves. But ordinary Nigerians cannot.
If it becomes acceptable to arrest a person’s associate without clearly establishing that associate’s own criminal liability, tomorrow it could be the trader questioned because of a relative, the employee detained because of an employer or the family member pressured because a suspect cannot be found.
Lawyers and rule-of-law advocates have repeatedly argued that anti-corruption agencies strengthen public confidence when investigations are driven by evidence and weaken it when enforcement appears to follow political lines or relies on proxy actions.
Even the perception that someone has been detained because of who they know rather than what they allegedly did can undermine confidence in legitimate anti-corruption efforts.
Citizens should therefore monitor the proceedings closely and formally request that the ICPC disclose the specific offence the doctor is alleged to have committed and the legal provisions supporting the arrest.
For the ICPC, it should immediately clarify the legal basis for the doctor’s arrest and confirm whether he is being prosecuted for an offence allegedly committed in his own right.
As for the judiciary, it should ensure that every stage of the proceedings complies fully with Sections 35 and 36 of the constitution, while the attorney-general should ensure that anti-corruption enforcement across all agencies remains firmly anchored in due process.
