A strongly worded opinion piece by Nigerian columnist Farooq A. Kperogi has sparked fresh debate on accountability, selective justice, and political memory.
In a column published in the Saturday Tribune, Kperogi argues that former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai and former Attorney General Abubakar Malami do not deserve public sympathy despite their current legal and political troubles.
He said supporters often portray both men as victims of political persecution. However, he described them as “temporarily subdued top dogs” who once wielded power with little regard for fairness or due process.
Kperogi opened the column with a solemn note. He explained that he completed the article before news emerged about the death of El-Rufai’s mother and offered prayers for her soul. However, he maintained a firm stance on the political issues raised in his critique.
Kperogi acknowledged claims that the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may apply justice selectively.
He noted that some allies within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) appear shielded from prosecution.
However, he argued that such concerns do not excuse El-Rufai’s and Malami’s past conduct.
According to him, both men thrived in a system where justice often worked selectively. While in power, they benefited from that system. Now, he said, they face the consequences after losing political influence.
The columnist revisited El-Rufai’s tenure as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.
He highlighted the mass demolitions and forced evictions carried out in Abuja. The demolitions displaced hundreds of thousands of residents and earned El-Rufai the nickname “Mai Rusau” (the demolisher).
Critics say the actions reflected a governance style that showed little regard for the human cost.
Kperogi also pointed to El-Rufai’s time as Kaduna governor. He accused the former governor of suppressing dissent and targeting political opponents.
Kperogi directed even stronger criticism at Malami.
He cited several cases in which the former attorney general allegedly justified disobedience to court orders in the name of “public interest.”
These cases involved Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, Sambo Dasuki, Omoyele Sowore, and Nnamdi Kanu.
According to Kperogi, Malami’s legal arguments normalized executive impunity and weakened public trust in the rule of law.
He described Malami not as a passive participant but as a “doctrinal salesman” of selective justice.
Kperogi also criticized those defending the two politicians.
He accused them of selective memory. Many now call for compassion and fairness. However, he argued that the same principles were often denied to others when El-Rufai and Malami held power.
“Their tragedy,” he wrote, “is not that they are being treated unjustly in a system where such treatment is rare—but that they are experiencing a system they helped create.”
Despite his criticism, Kperogi said both men still deserve due process.
He stressed that legal fairness must apply to everyone, regardless of political history.
However, he rejected attempts to portray them as martyrs or symbols of innocence.
According to him, their current predicament reflects both political realities and the consequences of a system they once defended.
The column has sparked widespread discussion across Nigeria’s political landscape.
Supporters and critics continue to debate whether accountability should be balanced with empathy or grounded firmly in political memory.
