By Moshood Oshunfurewa
The office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) sits at the heart of Nigeria’s democracy. By law, the AGF is the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, a defender of the Constitution, and a guardian of justice. In reality, however, a troubling question keeps resurfacing: is the AGF serving the nation, or the President?
Under Section 150 of the 1999 Constitution, the AGF doubles as Minister of Justice and a member of the Federal Executive Council. That dual role creates a built-in conflict. As a cabinet member, the AGF is expected to support government policy. As chief law officer, he is expected to uphold the law, even when it goes against the government’s interests.
In theory, that balance is possible. In practice, it often tilts toward political loyalty.
Recent developments have brought this tension into sharper focus. The prosecution of former AGF Abubakar Malami by the EFCC on money laundering allegations raises uncomfortable questions. If a former chief law officer can face such charges, it suggests that safeguards during his tenure may have been weak, or selectively applied. Accountability after leaving office is important, but it cannot replace integrity while in office.
Then there is the move by the current AGF, Lateef Fagbemi, to seek the deregistration of several political parties. Legally, the argument may stand, parties must meet constitutional requirements. But in a tense political climate, timing matters. When such actions risk shrinking opposition space, they raise concerns about whether legal powers are being used neutrally or strategically.
Another example is the collapse of serious charges against #EndBadGovernance protesters. When a Federal High Court presided over by Emeka Nwite struck out allegations of treason and terrorism, it reaffirmed the judiciary’s independence. But it also raised a deeper question: why were such heavy charges brought in the first place?
When cases initiated under the AGF’s authority repeatedly fail in court, it puts prosecutorial judgment under scrutiny. Are decisions driven purely by law, or influenced by politics?
This is the core problem. The issue is not just about individuals; it is about structure. Combining the roles of Attorney-General and Minister of Justice makes true independence difficult. One office cannot effectively serve both political and constitutional masters without friction.
This is why calls for reform continue to grow. Legal experts, including Femi Falana, have long argued for separating the two roles. An independent Attorney-General, insulated from political pressure, would strengthen public confidence in the justice system.
READ ALSO: Keyamo Accuses Media, Activists Of Misrepresenting Nigerian Public Opinion
But separation alone is not enough. The appointment process also matters. As long as the AGF is appointed solely at the President’s discretion, independence will remain more theoretical than real. A more transparent and merit-based process is needed.
Ultimately, this debate goes beyond legal theory. It is about public trust. When citizens believe the law is applied selectively, strict for some, flexible for others, confidence in the system erodes. And when trust in the justice system weakens, democracy itself is at risk.
The Constitution is clear: the AGF serves the Federation. But in practice, that line often blurs.
Nigeria must confront this reality. The AGF must not be a political loyalist first and a constitutional guardian second. The office demands courage, the courage to stand with the law, even when it is inconvenient to power.
Until that line is firmly drawn, the question will remain: is the Attorney-General truly for the Federation, or for the President?
Moshood Oshunfurewa writes from Lagos and can be reached through mailto:moshoodho2025@gmail.com