POWER IS TEMPORARY: WHEN THE POWERFUL LEAVE OFFICE, THE COURTS REMAIN
......El-Rufai, Ekweremadu and Emefiele embody three very different legal journeys — and one enduring lesson about political power
THE ANALYST | SPECIAL REPORT
By The Analyst
ABUJA — Political power can command attention, loyalty and enormous institutional influence.
But it does not last forever.
Governors leave government houses. Ministers surrender official cars and security details. Senators lose the authority of the chamber. Central bank governors eventually hand over the keys to the institution they once controlled.
Then comes the harder question:
What happens when the office is gone but the consequences of decisions taken in office remain?
The contrasting legal journeys of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai, former Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu, and former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor Godwin Emefiele provide a striking illustration.
They are not identical cases. They do not carry identical legal outcomes. And they must not be portrayed as though they do.
But together, their stories raise an uncomfortable question for Nigeria's political class:
Is political power truly permanent — or does its protection end when the office ends?
EL-RUFAI: THE GOVERNOR IS GONE. THE COURT CASE REMAINS.
For eight years, Nasir El-Rufai was one of the most influential political figures in northern Nigeria.
He served as Kaduna State governor from 2015 to 2023 and had earlier occupied the powerful position of Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.
Today, his political status is different — and so is his relationship with the courts.
El-Rufai is currently involved in ongoing legal proceedings in Nigeria.
In one case, the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed October 26, 2026, to rule on his no-case submission in a trial arising from allegations concerning the unlawful interception of telephone communications linked to National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu.
The prosecution has opposed the no-case submission and urged the court to require El-Rufai to enter his defence. His lawyers, however, have argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and have asked that he be discharged.
El-Rufai has pleaded not guilty.
He also has a separate fundamental-rights suit against the ICPC, Inspector-General of Police and Attorney-General of the Federation. The Federal High Court has fixed October 27 for further hearing of the ₦1 billion suit.
Whatever the eventual judicial outcomes, one fact is already clear:
The power of the governor's office cannot determine the outcome of a case once the matter is before the courts.
The court will have to decide the legal questions on the evidence and applicable law.
EKWEREMADU: WHEN POLITICAL POWER COLLIDES WITH A FOREIGN COURT
Ike Ekweremadu's story represents a different legal reality.
For years, he occupied one of the most powerful positions in Nigeria's National Assembly, eventually becoming Deputy Senate President.
But his legal troubles unfolded not in Nigeria, but in the United Kingdom.
In 2023, Ekweremadu was convicted in the UK in connection with a kidney-transplant conspiracy and sentenced to imprisonment.
Unlike the cases involving El-Rufai and Emefiele, Ekweremadu's imprisonment followed a criminal conviction.
That distinction is critical.
His case demonstrates that political influence at home does not confer immunity from criminal jurisdiction abroad.
The courtroom does not operate according to the size of a politician's political network.
Once jurisdiction is established, the individual stands before the law.
EMEFIELE: FROM CBN POWERHOUSE TO COURTROOM DEFENDANT
Few offices in Nigeria carry as much economic influence as that of the Central Bank governor.
Godwin Emefiele occupied that position for years.
Interest rates, monetary policy, currency management and major financial decisions placed the former CBN governor at the centre of Nigeria's economic machinery.
But after leaving office, Emefiele became the defendant in criminal proceedings.
His Lagos trial includes a 19-count charge involving allegations of abuse of office, corruption, gratification and fraudulent property transactions. Emefiele and co-defendant Henry Omoile have pleaded not guilty.
In July 2026, the Lagos State Special Offences Court admitted statements allegedly made by Emefiele to the EFCC into evidence. The court fixed further hearing dates for October and November.
Separately, the Supreme Court in July restored a final forfeiture order concerning several high-value properties linked to Emefiele after an earlier Court of Appeal decision had set aside the original order. The Supreme Court's decision concerned forfeiture proceedings and should not be confused with a criminal conviction in the ongoing trial.
Again, the distinction matters.
Emefiele is facing criminal proceedings; that is not the same thing as a criminal conviction.
THREE MEN. THREE LEGAL REALITIES.
The temptation in political commentary is to place all former power brokers into one convenient narrative.
That is precisely where journalism must exercise caution.
El-Rufai: facing ongoing proceedings in Nigeria and contesting the prosecution's case.
Ekweremadu: convicted in the United Kingdom and imprisoned pursuant to that conviction.
Emefiele: facing ongoing criminal proceedings in Nigeria and pleading not guilty.
Three prominent former officeholders.
Three different legal realities.
One common lesson:
Leaving office does not necessarily mean leaving the consequences of office behind.
THE OFFICE ENDS. THE RECORD REMAINS.
Nigeria's political culture has often revolved around personalities.
The governor.
The minister.
The senator.
The chairman.
The director-general.
The central bank governor.
While they occupy office, their decisions can affect millions of people.
But officeholders eventually leave.
The files remain.
The contracts remain.
The appointments remain.
The policies remain.
The institutional decisions remain.
And, where allegations arise, the courts remain.
That is why public office should never be confused with personal ownership of political institutions.
A government house is not a family inheritance. A ministry is not a personal estate. A public institution is not a political possession.
Office is temporary.
The public record is not.
THE REAL TEST OF POWER
Political power is often measured by what a person can make happen while in office.
Who answers the telephone?
Who gets an appointment?
Who receives access?
Who controls the machinery?
Who can summon officials?
Who can influence decisions?
But there is another, less visible measure of power:
What happens when the officeholder no longer controls the machinery?
That is where institutions are tested.
If investigations can proceed against former officeholders, institutions demonstrate independence.
If courts can hear politically sensitive cases without regard to the defendant's former status, the rule of law gains meaning.
If prosecutors must prove their allegations rather than rely on political popularity, justice gains credibility.
And if defendants are given due process regardless of their political standing, accountability becomes more than a slogan.
ACCOUNTABILITY MUST NOT BECOME POLITICAL REVENGE
There is also a warning for those celebrating the legal difficulties of former political heavyweights.
Accountability cannot mean replacing one form of political power with another.
An accused person is not automatically guilty because an investigation has begun.
A defendant does not become guilty because social media has reached a verdict.
And a politically unpopular figure does not lose the right to due process.
The reverse is equally important.
Political allies cannot convert every investigation into alleged persecution without examining the evidence.
The judiciary must be allowed to do what politics cannot:
separate allegation from proof.
WHAT SHOULD THOSE STILL IN POWER LEARN?
For serving politicians, the message is straightforward.
Every official decision can outlive the official who made it.
Every signature can become part of a file.
Every expenditure can become subject to scrutiny.
Every appointment can become a matter of public record.
And every exercise of public authority can eventually be examined by institutions that the officeholder no longer controls.
Those currently enjoying power should therefore remember something that political history repeatedly demonstrates:
The people around you today may not be around you tomorrow.
The convoy will eventually shrink.
The official residence will eventually belong to someone else.
The title will eventually disappear.
The political phonebook will eventually change.
But decisions made in public office can remain.
AND FOR THE CITIZEN?
The lesson is even bigger.
Democracy should not depend on whether a politician is powerful, popular, unpopular, retired, defeated or still in office.
The same legal standards should apply.
The same presumption of innocence should apply where applicable.
The same demand for evidence should apply.
And the same constitutional protections should apply.
The objective should not be to see powerful people fall.
The objective should be to build institutions strong enough to hold everyone accountable under the law.
THE VIRAL GRAPHIC MISSES THE MOST IMPORTANT PART
A viral graphic circulating online presents El-Rufai, Ekweremadu and Emefiele under the headline “Power Is Temporary” and depicts all three as being “in prison.”
The headline raises a legitimate issue about the temporary nature of political power.
The description of the three men, however, requires correction.
As of September 30, 2026, Ekweremadu is imprisoned following his UK conviction; El-Rufai remains involved in ongoing Nigerian proceedings; and Emefiele remains a defendant in ongoing criminal trials after pleading not guilty.
That difference is not a technicality.
It is the difference between accusation and conviction.
And for journalism committed to accountability, facts must matter even when the subject is powerful.
POWER IS TEMPORARY. INSTITUTIONS MUST ENDURE.
Political power changes hands.
Governments change.
Appointments change.
Alliances change.
But the institutions of the state must remain.
That is the deeper lesson behind these three cases.
The strongest democracy is not one in which powerful people are guaranteed immunity.
Nor is it one in which political opponents are presumed guilty.
It is one in which the powerful can be investigated, the accused can defend themselves, prosecutors must prove their cases, and judges can decide without political instruction.
Because eventually, every officeholder leaves office.
The office remains.
The law remains.
And the record remains.
---
THE ANALYST
Investigating Power. Reporting Facts. Holding Institutions Accountable.
EDITOR'S NOTE
The Analyst distinguishes allegations, ongoing proceedings, forfeiture proceedings and criminal convictions. Nothing in this report should be interpreted as a finding of criminal liability against any person whose criminal case remains before the courts. The legal status of each case is stated as of September 30, 2026, based on available court reporting.