The presidency has rejected claims of the weaponization of anti-corruption agencies as put forward by opposition politicians.

On Sunday, a coalition of opposition leaders accused the federal government of deploying the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to intimidate and weaken political opponents, warning that the trend poses a serious threat to Nigeria’s multiparty democracy.

In a statement, Bayo Onanuga, special adviser to the president on information and strategy, described the opposition as failed politicians seeking scapegoats for their shortcomings.

He said claims that democracy is under threat because politicians are joining the All Progressives Congress (APC) are unfounded.

“Our constitution guarantees freedom of association and affords our people the right to change their political leanings at any time of their choosing,” the statement reads.

“None of the people who joined the governing APC was pressured to do so. They all did so of their own free will. They are being motivated by the noticeable gains of President Bola Tinubu’s reform programme.”

He asked whether Nigeria’s democracy was imperiled when politicians defected in droves to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) between 2000 and 2015.

Onanuga said ongoing investigations by the EFCC have exposed politicians who need to account for their stewardship in office.

He said those under investigation are now accusing Tinubu of weaponizing the EFCC for political purposes.

“While the Presidency does not speak for the EFCC and believes the agency can speak for itself, we must reiterate that the EFCC is an independent institution established by law and empowered to carry out its statutory responsibilities without interference or favour,” Onanuga said.

“The agency’s mandate is to investigate and prosecute financial crimes, irrespective of the personalities involved, their political affiliations, or their positions in society.

“We find it curious that the same people who claimed they want to rescue Nigeria are now the ones waging a war of attrition against accountability and probity.

“Those who have cases to answer before EFCC should be bold and brave enough to defend themselves if they are clean.

“The agency’s mandate is to investigate and prosecute financial crimes, irrespective of the personalities involved, their political affiliations, or their positions in society.”

Onanuga said Tinubu does not issue directives to any anti-corruption agency on whom to investigate, arrest, or prosecute.

He said the president is focused on addressing national challenges rather than engaging in political targeting.

Onanuga said prosecution is carried out by the courts and not through political manipulation. He said those found not guilty will be cleared by the judicial process.

Onanuga described allegations of EFCC weaponization as distractions by politicians running short of campaign issues.

He said no one is above the law and that political affiliation should not shield anyone from accountability.

“We have taken cognisance of the signatories to the statement. It is instructive that some of them were previously investigated and prosecuted by the EFCC even before President Tinubu took office in 2023,” he added.

“Some of these politicians have also been indicted in international financial probes for money laundering, with some of their accomplices jailed in foreign lands.”

The appropriateness or otherwise of security protection for a president’s family can be a subject of public debate. This debate is centred on the complex challenge of ensuring the safety of people connected to the presidency while being mindful of public accountability and the effective use of government resources.

This writer will focus solely on the provision of security for the president’s family, as understood, in layman’s terms. Recently, at a public function, President Tinubu’s son, Seyi,’s excessive security escort was criticized by Nobel laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka. The respected leader had argued that such resources were needed elsewhere.

From my study, it is standard international practice for a country’s president’s immediate family, including the children, to receive significant security protection. This is due to the high profile of the president and the potential national security risks that could arise from threats and various forms of harm to the president’s family members.

Nigeria is currently confronted by multiple security challenges like kidnapping and banditry, with the primary threat coming from the Islamic State of West Africa (ISWA) and Boko Haram. On that score, threatening or harming a president’s son, daughter, or wife could be used to blackmail the president and compromise his ability to perform state duties, thereby creating a national crisis. Thus, the goal of ‘excessively’ protecting the president’s family is to ensure the stability and continuity of the president’s function and, by extension, the nation, by mitigating high-level threats to the First Family.

I am not familiar with the local laws on the protection of private individuals, but, based on my research, in developed countries whose model of democracy Nigeria especially practices, such as the US, the provision of security by agencies like the DSS to the president’s immediate family is a federal law, not a discretionary choice.

The president’s family members often attend public schools or travel, requiring extensive, pre-planned security measures and an advance team to ensure their safety in such environments. Even the US law specifies that children of former presidents receive protection until they are 16 years old, unless declined.

In other climes, a sitting president can issue an executive order to extend protection to members of his family, including individuals not automatically covered by law. I will support this argument with two empirical evidence. Just before departing the White House, finally in January 2025, after the expiration of his constitutional two terms as president of the United States, Joe Biden extended protection for his adult children through the next seven months via an executive order.

That presidential order was critiqued by his successor, Donald Trump, and subsequently revoked by him. However, Trump himself did the same for his four adult children and two of their spouses before his first term ended in 2021, when they were given six months of additional protection beyond their stay in the government house. Thus, my interpretation of this subject is that, if it’s not unusual for a president before he leaves office to authorize an extended period of protection for their immediate family members, giving them full-time protection while holding the power is justified and not inappropriate.

-Tahir Hamsat is a Lagos-based journalist. He can be reached via 08051000485

Nigeria’s First Lady, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, has dismissed public backlash over her interaction with Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, calling the reactions a “needless controversy.”

In a statement posted on her Facebook page on Tuesday, Mrs Tinubu said critics often magnify minor issues and create distractions around leadership. She wrote:

“Those entrusted with leadership understand their duties and how to steer the affairs of society.

“More often, it is the followers and critics who scrutinize every step, amplify minor missteps, and turn them into needless controversy. Ọṣun lè tèǹtẹ̀ – Osun is ahead.”

The comments followed a video clip from the 10th coronation anniversary of the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi, which showed Adeleke pausing after breaking into a short song during his speech.

Mrs Tinubu walked to the podium, gestured to him, and whispered to him — a moment that quickly went viral and drew sharp reactions online.

The First Lady’s statement marks her first public response since the video circulated.

The episode has since divided opinion.

Senior Special Assistant to the Governor on the Bureau of Social Services, Akintunde Bello, said the First Lady should be cautioned, insisting that her gesture toward an elected governor was inappropriate.

Similarly, African Democratic Congress chieftain Dele Momodu criticised the act, describing it as bullying and alleging that Mrs Tinubu had “openly disgraced and embarrassed Adeleke before a global audience.”

Some, however, believe that Mrs Tinubu’s action was justified.

Dayo Fashola, an aide to a former Osun State Governor Adegboyega Oyetola, on her verified Facebook page, said the interaction between the duo was lighthearted.

“What transpired between Oluremi Tinubu and Adeleke was light‑hearted and isn’t as serious as people are making it seem,” Fashola wrote.

Similarly, Facebook user Oyetunji Ayoade defended the First Lady, writing, “The highest respect the First Lady can give to Osun people is to stand up and inform him by herself, and she did.”

Neither Governor Adeleke nor the Presidency has issued further comments, even as the incident continues to dominate social media discussions.