Why are Whistleblowers Punished While Powerful Individuals are Protected? – Otunba Babatunde Olushola Senbanjo

By Otunba Babatunde Olushola Senbanjo (BOS)

The recent reports alleging that the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, is furious over a purported ₦100 million “security vote” scandal allegedly involving his son raise deeply troubling questions about leadership, integrity, and accountability at the very top of Nigeria’s policing system. Whether or not the full details eventually prove accurate, the mere weight of these allegations and the reported attempts to shift blame to police officials and the Anambra State Government for the leak strikes at the heart of public trust in the Nigeria Police Force.

At a time when Nigerians are facing unprecedented insecurity, economic hardship, and a crisis of confidence in state institutions, the IGP should represent moral authority, transparency, and professionalism. Instead, the public is confronted with reports that suggest anger is being directed not at alleged wrongdoing, but at who exposed it. This posture, if true, is dangerous. It reinforces the long-held belief that in Nigeria, whistleblowers are punished while powerful individuals are protected.
The Nigeria Police Force is not a private family institution; it is a constitutional body funded by taxpayers’ money.

Any allegation, especially one involving such a staggering sum and a close relative of the IGP, demands an independent investigation, openness, and restraint, not defensive outrage or blame-shifting. Blaming unnamed police officials or a state government for a “leak” rather than welcoming a transparent probe sends a chilling message to officers and citizens alike: silence is safer than truth.

More worrying is the continued stay of Kayode Egbetokun in office, despite widespread public unease and questions surrounding his tenure and age. Many Nigerians are asking: why has he not been retired in line with expectations and existing service norms? Why does the APC-led Federal Government appear determined to retain him at all costs? These questions are not coming from political opponents alone; they are coming from ordinary citizens who have watched institutions bend repeatedly to serve political interests.

The suspicion fair or not that this retention is connected to the 2027 electoral calculations cannot simply be dismissed. Nigeria’s recent electoral history has left scars. The police play a critical role in election security, crowd control, and enforcement of electoral laws. When the head of such an institution is perceived as politically shielded or compromised, it fuels fears that the police may be weaponised to suppress dissent, intimidate voters, or look the other way during electoral malpractice. Democracy cannot survive on such foundations.

This is not about personal vendetta; it is about institutional credibility. If the IGP has nothing to hide, the most honourable path would be to step aside or submit himself and any implicated relatives to a truly independent investigation. That is how confidence is restored in mature democracies. Clinging to office amid controversy only deepens suspicion and damages the force he claims to protect.

Nigeria does not need an IGP who is perceived as politically indispensable; it needs one who is constitutionally accountable. It does not need a police chief shielded by power; it needs one guided by law. The APC-led government must understand that protecting individuals at the expense of institutions is a recipe for long-term instability.

If these allegations are swept under the carpet, it will confirm the fears of many Nigerians that there are two systems of justice in the country one for the powerful and one for the powerless. And if the police leadership is compromised ahead of 2027, the legitimacy of future elections will be questioned even before the first ballot is cast.

Nigeria deserves better. The Nigerian Police Force deserves better. Accountability, transparency, and timely retirement are not acts of weakness; they are pillars of democracy. Anything less only strengthens the belief that the system is being prepared not for security but for control.