Bello Adoke: Ibrahim Magu Owes No Apology for Doing His Job

By Tajudeen Suleiman

The former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), is a man I hold in high esteem for his forthrightness and knowledge of the law. I have read most of his media interviews and have always been impressed by his candour — and especially by what I perceived as a strong desire to set the record straight on important issues in which he was involved.

So you can imagine my shock when, at his recent book presentation, he deviated from his accustomed bluntness into the arena of theatrics and make-believe. Perhaps it was, in the tradition of biographies, an attempt to remove the stains of alleged corruption on an otherwise brilliant legal career.

Speaking at the book event, he stated that he had “forgiven” former Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), AIG Ibrahim Magu (rtd), for his actions while in office. Of course, Magu was the EFCC chairman when the anti-graft agency prosecuted Adoke for alleged money laundering — a case that was eventually struck out.

This is probably why Adoke also urged Magu, whom he described as a friend, to “seek forgiveness” from others like him who, in his view, suffered during Magu’s tenure at the EFCC.

While Adoke’s gesture may be seen by some as magnanimous, it raises important questions about the nature of public service, accountability, and personal responsibility within a democratic state governed by law.

Magu was not acting as a private citizen or political actor. He was a civil servant appointed to carry out the EFCC’s mandate — to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. In doing so, he acted not on personal whims but under the authority of the law and in pursuit of the Nigerian state’s interest in transparency, anti-corruption, and public accountability.

The suggestion that Magu must seek forgiveness implies that he committed a personal wrong. This is misleading and unjust. If Magu wronged anyone, it would have to be demonstrated within the context of abuse of power, malicious prosecution, or personal vendetta. Absent any court ruling or official indictment establishing such misconduct, it is inappropriate to speak of “forgiveness” in moral or interpersonal terms.

Magu neither owed Adoke nor anyone else personal loyalty. His allegiance, like that of every civil servant, was to the Nigerian state and its constitutional responsibilities.

Adoke, as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, ought to know that investigations are different from persecutions. He and the others to whom he wants Magu to apologize were investigated and, at points, prosecuted by the EFCC during Magu’s tenure. Whether those actions were politically motivated is a legitimate topic of public debate — especially given Nigeria’s complex political landscape.

However, the legal and moral framework within which Magu operated required him to investigate all allegations of corruption, including those against high-ranking officials.

The fact that someone was subjected to investigation does not automatically render the investigator culpable of wrongdoing. The proper venue to contest any overreach or illegality is the court of law — not the court of sentiment.

Adoke and others who feel aggrieved have every right to express their experiences. But recasting institutional accountability as personal injury risks distorting the historical record. It paints civil service actions as private vendettas and sets a dangerous precedent: that those who serve the state diligently, especially in sensitive roles, must apologize for stepping on powerful toes.

If every anti-corruption official must apologize to those they investigate, then no one will have the courage to do the job. The EFCC, like other institutions of accountability, depends on the courage of individuals willing to endure unpopularity in the pursuit of public good.

If there are lessons to be drawn from the turbulence of the anti-corruption war in Nigeria, they must include a recommitment to the rule of law, respect for institutional processes, and recognition of the line between public duty and personal grievance.

Magu, like any other public servant, is not above reproach. But unless it is shown that he acted maliciously or outside his mandate, there is nothing to forgive. And more importantly, there is nothing to apologize for.

In a nation struggling to hold its leaders accountable, we must be careful not to create a climate where those who dare to enforce the law become targets of moral guilt-tripping.

Adoke and others may feel wronged — that is their right. But they must also acknowledge that in a functioning democracy, no one is immune from scrutiny — not even former Attorneys General.

The right to reply must include the right to set the record straight. Ibrahim Magu acted for the state. He owes explanations only to the law — not apologies to its subjects.

By asking him to apologize for doing his job, Adoke has, uncharacteristically, cast aspersion on a public servant whose only “offence” was acting within the mandate of his office. Rather than Magu expressing regrets over his actions while in office, it is Adoke who should pick up the phone and offer an apology — for impugning the character of a man before the world.

Mr. Suleiman is an Abuja-based journalist. He can be reached via tajudeensuleiman@yahoo.com