Presidency blasts Atiku over US petitions against Tinubu

The Presidency on Thursday fired back at former Vice President Atiku Abubakar over reports that his lobbying group in the United States had submitted petitions to President Donald Trump and the US State Department regarding a 1993 civil forfeiture case against President Bola Tinubu.

It described the move as an affront to Nigeria’s sovereignty, citing Atiku’s own legal exposure in the United States.

In a statement signed Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the 1993 case had been resolved more than 30 years ago with no criminal conviction or finding of guilt, adding that reviving it through paid foreign lobbyists was “an attempt to externalise domestic politics and undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty.”

Onanuga wrote, “It is baffling and disappointing that someone who has sought the presidency for over three decades now resorts to reporting the President of Nigeria to US President Donald Trump and members of the US Congress.

“Reporting the President of Nigeria to another country’s leader is not only inappropriate but also undermines the nation’s dignity and independence.

“Nigeria is a sovereign nation, not a satellite of any foreign power.”

The Presidency argued that the matter had been thoroughly litigated and rendered moot by the electoral mandates conferred on Tinubu by the people of Lagos and Nigeria, and later affirmed by the Supreme Court.

“Nigerians resolved this matter at the ballot in February 2023 and in the Supreme Court. That verdict stands, and Atiku’s latest fishing expedition would amount to nought,” the statement read.

It further cited Atiku’s own legal history in the United States, drawing attention to the William Jefferson bribery scandal, in which the American congressman was convicted and jailed, and a 2010 US Senate investigation chaired by Senator Carl Levin titled ‘Keeping Foreign Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories’.

The Presidency said the case documented how Atiku used offshore companies to bring suspect funds, including alleged bribes from multinationals running into millions of dollars, into the United States.

It noted that Atiku’s former wife, Jennifer Douglas, was also cited as a subject of that investigation.

“Furthermore, if Atiku Abubakar can spend $1.2m on American lobbyists to report President Tinubu, perhaps he should also clarify his own legal standing in the United States,” Onanuga said.

The Presidency also cited the privatisation programme overseen by Atiku during his tenure as Vice President under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, describing it as “an egregious privatisation heist” in which national assets were allegedly sold to cronies at undervalue.

It said the deals reached under the privatisation programme caused mass job losses and unpaid salaries and pensions.

“A man with such a dismal record as a public servant certainly has no business asking for our votes,” the statement said.

It also questioned the motivation behind Atiku’s presidential ambition, saying it was “driven not just by his marabout-fuelled ambition, but by a desire for diplomatic immunity and to evade potential legal issues abroad.”

Onanuga insisted that the President was not distracted by the development, saying, “President Tinubu is unfazed by Atiku’s theatrics as he remains focused on his Renewed Hope Agenda, stabilising the economy, attracting investments, securing the nation, and restoring Nigeria’s standing in the world.

“He is not distracted by political actors, perennial losers like Atiku, who now seek validation abroad.”

Atiku contested the 2023 presidential election on the Peoples Democratic Party platform and lost to Tinubu before moving to the African Democratic Congress for his 2027 bid.

Replying, Atiku accused the Presidency of resorting to personal attacks instead of addressing what he described as legitimate questions surrounding Tinubu’s alleged forfeiture of funds to the US government.

He said the administration had chosen “diversion over disclosure and insults over accountability,” arguing that Nigerians deserve factual explanations rather than political rhetoric.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former Vice President said the Presidency devoted its response to attacking his person while failing to address the substantive issues that had continued to attract public attention.

“When governments abandon facts for insults and substitute evidence with abuse, they unwittingly admit that they have run out of convincing answers.

“Nigerians expected clarification. What they received instead was a barrage of name-calling and political invective,” the statement read.

Atiku rejected suggestions that raising questions about documents already in the public domain amounted to undermining Nigeria’s sovereignty, insisting that the controversy concerned records relating to the country’s highest public office.

“No one has reported Nigeria to anyone. Nigeria is not on trial. The issue concerns questions arising from publicly available records relating to the occupant of the nation’s highest office.

“Those records were not created by the opposition, the ADC, or any political actor. Attempting to silence legitimate public inquiry by wrapping oneself in the national flag does not answer the questions before the country,” the statement further read.

Atiku also criticised the Presidency for reviving what he described as old political allegations against him instead of responding directly to the issues he raised.

“Nigerians can distinguish between political mudslinging and factual responses. Personal attacks do not erase public records, nor do they substitute for transparency.

“The Presidency should resist the temptation to personalise issues that require clear and factual explanations,” he added.

He also described as contradictory what he called the administration’s approach to international engagement, arguing that a government that welcomes foreign investment, international endorsements and external financing should not reject international scrutiny when it becomes politically inconvenient.

“You cannot celebrate international validation when it is convenient and condemn international scrutiny when it becomes uncomfortable. Accountability is not foreign interference; it is a democratic obligation,” he argued.

The former Vice President dismissed suggestions that Tinubu’s electoral victory had settled every issue relating to public accountability, saying, “Elections confer political authority, but they do not extinguish the public’s right to ask questions.

“A democratic mandate is not a substitute for transparency, nor does it exempt any public official from the obligation to account to the people.”

Atiku urged the Presidency to respond with facts if it believed the public record had been misunderstood.

“If the government believes that the public record has been misunderstood or misrepresented, the appropriate response is to present the facts. Abuse cannot replace evidence, and propaganda cannot replace truth,” he stressed.

Maintaining that democratic governments should embrace scrutiny rather than resist it, Atiku said Nigerians deserved clear answers on the controversy.

“The Nigerian people deserve answers, not insults. They want to know if their President forfeited money to the Government of the United States of America on account of drug-related offences.

“They deserve transparency, not diversion. Until those questions are addressed with facts, no amount of outrage or personal attacks will silence legitimate public inquiry,” he noted.