By Patrick Wemambu and Chika Okeke
Despite years of government campaigns, institutional reforms and the establishment of specialised agencies to combat corruption, the fight against graft in Nigeria continues to face serious challenges, raising questions about why some public office holders appear undeterred by the consequences of misappropriating public resources.
From allegations of financial misconduct involving government officials to prolonged corruption trials and concerns about selective justice, the persistence of corruption has exposed significant weaknesses in the country’s accountability system.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and other government institutions have continued to prosecute corruption-related offences.
However, the existence of these agencies has not, by itself, eliminated the conditions that allow corruption to thrive.
For many Nigerians, the central concern is no longer the absence of anti-corruption campaigns but whether public officials who abuse their positions face timely, impartial and credible consequences.
Financial experts have observed that one of the major reasons corruption persists is the gap between the existence of laws and their effective enforcement.
Dr. Joan Andeh, a financial expert, recalled that Nigeria has legislation criminalising financial crimes, abuse of office and other corrupt practices, but regretted that enforcement challenges continue to undermine the deterrent effect of these provisions.
According to Andeh who spoke with Nigerian Pilot, in February 2026, the ICPC Chairman, Musa Aliyu, told federal lawmakers that inadequate funding had limited the Commission’s ability to prosecute all individuals indicted for corruption.
The Chairman, according to her, explained that the agency had to prioritise cases based on available financial resources, affecting investigations and court proceedings.
The funding constraints highlight how institutional capacity can determine whether corruption allegations proceed beyond investigation to successful prosecution”, he was quoted to have said.
Although the EFCC has reported thousands of convictions and significant asset recoveries, these achievements have not eliminated concerns about the consistency and reach of enforcement.
Another expert, Prof. Philip Njemanze, blamed politicians for weaponising justice.
Njemanze who is the Head of the Global Prolife Alliance, GPA blamed politicians and elites for weaponising justice, which he said is responsible for the lackadaisical attitude displayed by public office holders while misappropriating public funds.
“Despite the existence of anti-corruption bodies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, and Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission, ICPC, public office holders are unperturbed on the weighty punishment revolving around corrupt practices”, he said.
In a chat with Nigerian Pilot on Sunday, Njemanze, who is also the Chairman International Institutes of Advanced Research and Training at Chidicon Medical Center Owerri, Imo State lamented that the fight against corruption undermined the estimated impact by serving as a platform for witch-hunting.
“The problem with the anti-corruption fight in Nigeria is that politicians in power at any given time have weaponised justice for political coercion. It creates a climate of political witch-hunting rather than genuine quest for Justice.
“One remedy is that Nigerians must insist on full Independence of the Judiciary and all its arms including the EFCC and ICPC,” he added.
Critics of the anti-corruption system have raised questions about whether investigations and prosecutions are pursued consistently across political divides.
A 2025 academic study examining partisanship and selective prosecution in Nigeria identified political affiliation, personal connections and the lack of judicial independence as factors affecting the prosecution of corruption cases.
The study’s findings reflect the concerns raised by its researchers and interview participants, rather than establishing that every prosecution is politically motivated.
The experts also observed that delayed prosecution and low resolution of cases are another factor that can weaken the consequences of financial misconduct.
In his contribution, a Resource person/Lecturer at the International Institute of Journalism, IIJ, Abuja, Dr. Afolabi Olajuwon said “Corruption is endemic in all facets of society. However, when you talk of corruption there is the tendency to concentrate on the ruling class and politicians.”
“For instance, there is financial, political, social and family corruption, even among the lower class like in the transportation industry and petrol (fuel) stations.
“The bottom line is that you have weak regulatory frameworks that prevent enforcement of the myriads of extant regulations and laws in the country. The solution is to strengthen those Acts to arrest the challenge in question”, he added.
A review published by Dataphyte in April 2026 examined 393 corruption cases involving public officials between 2013 and 2026. According to the analysis, only 144 cases had reached final judgment, leaving more than 60 per cent unresolved at the time of the review.
The figures indicate the scale of pending litigation, although unresolved cases should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of guilt or institutional failure in every individual matter as cases may involve complex investigations, procedural applications, appeals and other legal requirements.
Also in March 2026, EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede and ICPC Chairman Musa Aliyu expressed concerns over delays in the determination of high-profile corruption cases during a meeting of the Corruption and Financial Crimes Cases Trial Monitoring Committee in Abuja.
The agencies called attention to the need for faster trials, while the debate has continued over how to protect defendants’ rights without allowing procedural delays to frustrate justice.
For accused public officials, prolonged proceedings can mean that allegations remain unresolved for years. For the public, lengthy trials can reinforce the perception that individuals with access to influence and resources are able to avoid timely accountability.
On his part, Prof. Aliyu Umar Gombe observed that corruption does not occur only through the alleged diversion of funds by individual office holders.
According to him, weak financial controls, inadequate procurement oversight, poor record-keeping and insufficient transparency can create opportunities for the misuse of public resources.
He recalled that the 2026 Bertelsmann Transformation Index report on Nigeria described the country as having a substantial legal framework for combating corruption, while identifying persistent corruption within its political system.
“It also noted that political elites and public officials may be involved in practices connected to private gain and the diversion of public resources”, he stated.
“Effective accountability requires more than investigating officials after allegations emerge. It also involves preventing irregularities, strengthening internal audit systems, enforcing procurement rules and ensuring that public institutions disclose how funds are allocated and spent”, he quoted the report to have said.
When institutional checks fail, corruption risks becoming embedded in administrative procedures rather than remaining isolated incidents.
On allegations of selective justice, Gombe said the perception that justice is applied selectively has also influenced public discussions about Nigeria’s anti-corruption campaign.
“Questions have been raised about differences in the treatment of politically connected individuals, the progression of cases involving elected and appointed officials, and the circumstances under which investigations lead to convictions”, he said.
He recalled that a May 2026 report by Deutsche Welle, citing a Dataphyte review, highlighted differences in the prosecution of appointed officials and former governors. It also reported that several high-profile cases had taken years to conclude.
“These observations do not establish that every decision to prosecute or discontinue a case is politically driven. However, they demonstrate why transparency in prosecutorial decisions and the consistent application of legal standards are important to public confidence”, he added.
