“It is obvious that the federal government will not want to embarrass itself or ridicule the judicial system. This case will educate both the government and the citizens on the rights of individuals in a criminal investigation and trial. I am not merely involved. I am the case study, and the government understands this.” – Professor Sandra Chidinma Duru
When a government withdraws sensitive criminal charges without transparency, independent oversight, or restitution to affected parties, it sends a dangerous signal to both the governed and the institutions sworn to protect them. Justice becomes negotiable. Accountability becomes selective. And the integrity of the police and judiciary, already strained, is further compromised.
The politicization of criminal cases is not governance; it is institutional sabotage. When some individuals are quietly absolved while others are aggressively prosecuted for similar or lesser matters, the state normalizes inequality before the law. This is how lawlessness is born not from the streets, but from the very systems meant to prevent it.
Where are the compensations for victims whose lives, reputations, finances, and mental health were destroyed through compromised investigations and politicized prosecutions? Who answers for the years lost, the careers damaged, and the public trust eroded? Justice without repair is not justice. It is convenience dressed as authority.
If criminal accusations can be withdrawn after being publicly weaponized, then citizens are entitled to ask hard questions. Should Sandra Duru’s upcoming accusations against the AGF, the IGP, Akin Fakorede, politicians and other government officials also be withdrawn after public scrutiny exposes their corruption, and inconsistencies? Or is withdrawal a privilege reserved for the politically protected, even though it is glaringly obvious that the suspects have serious criminal cases to answer?
Why is one case withdrawn while another, such as Sowore’s, is retained? What legal principle governs this disparity? Or is the law now fluid, bending to power, alliances, and strategic political interests? Tell me what is different between Natasha and Sowore’s case?
If the cybercrime law is selectively enforced, then its legitimacy collapses. One cannot silence some voices while shielding others, then expect obedience from the public. A law applied without fairness becomes an instrument of intimidation, not justice.
The government must understand this clearly: when citizens observe selective justice, they learn selective obedience. When institutions protect power instead of truth, the people lose faith not just in leadership, but in the idea of law itself.
This is not a warning born of rebellion. It is a lesson drawn from history. No nation survives the erosion of justice by hypocrisy. Twisted laws, promotion of gender weaponization, media manipulation, and false accusations against innocent people!
Equality before the law is not optional. It is the last line between order and chaos.
As for me, i have a brilliant case against the FGN, AGF, the IGP and others on this Natasha Akpoti’s case withdrawal without closure! Else, i will use my own brilliance and intelligence to do the needful and then the FGN and the rest of the people and institutions involved will compensate me with $200 Million and clean up my name!
Prof. Sandra Chidinma Duru
