Insults can’t replace transparency over Tinubu records, Atiku tells presidency

Former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, has accused the Presidency of resorting to personal attacks instead of addressing questions he raised about President Bola Tinubu, insisting that “insults cannot replace transparency.”

Atiku’s response followed a statement by the Presidency on Thursday accusing him of undermining Nigeria’s sovereignty over reports that his lobbying group in the United States submitted petitions to President Donald Trump and the US State Department concerning a 1993 civil forfeiture case involving Tinubu.

In a statement issued on Thursday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the African Democratic Congress presidential candidate said the Presidency had failed to address the issues he raised and had instead resorted to name-calling.

“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,” he said.

The former vice president argued that asking questions based on public records should not be interpreted as an attack on Nigeria’s sovereignty.

“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,” Atiku said.

He faulted the Presidency for reviving what he described as old political allegations against him instead of responding directly to the issues 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 said.

Atiku also criticised what he described as the administration’s inconsistent position on international engagement.

“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 said.

He dismissed suggestions that electoral victory shielded public officials from scrutiny.

“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,” he said.

Urging the Presidency to provide factual explanations, Atiku said, “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 maintained that governments confident in their record should respond to public scrutiny with openness.

“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 said.

It was reported that the exchange between Atiku and the Presidency began after a Washington-based lobbying firm engaged by the former vice president said it had begun sharing documents relating to a long-running United States forfeiture case involving Tinubu with officials of the Donald Trump administration, members of Congress and congressional staff.

The firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., said it was providing records from the United States Department of Justice concerning allegations linked to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving funds connected to Tinubu.

“Following discussions with members of the Trump administration, Congress and senior congressional staff, we began providing more than 60 pages of Department of Justice documents concerning the DOJ’s allegations relating to Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s alleged involvement in a heroin trafficking investigation spanning the late 1980s and early 1990s,” the firm stated.

The documents circulated by the firm include a background chronology titled, “Background and Chronology of the 1993 U.S. Department of Justice Heroin-Proceeds Forfeiture Case and the 2023 FOIA Litigation Concerning Alleged Heroin Trafficking from Nigeria to the United States Involving Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the current President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

According to the chronology, the DOJ’s 1993 civil forfeiture action arose from an investigation into a suspected drug trafficking organisation operating between Nigeria and the United States.

The records referenced a case filed at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, identified as United States v. Funds in Account No. 263226700 et al., involving funds that the government alleged were proceeds of narcotics trafficking or connected to money laundering activities.

Reacting on Thursday, the Presidency, in a statement by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, described the move as an attempt to externalise domestic politics.

Onanuga maintained that the case had been resolved more than 30 years ago without any criminal conviction against the President.

He 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 further cited Atiku’s alleged legal history in the United States, referencing the William Jefferson bribery scandal involving a former American congressman who was convicted and jailed, as well as a 2010 US Senate investigation chaired by Senator Carl Levin titled, Keeping Foreign Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories.

The Presidency alleged that the report documented how Atiku used offshore companies to move suspect funds, including alleged bribes from multinational companies running into millions of dollars, into the United States.

It added that Atiku’s former wife, Jennifer Douglas, was also mentioned as a subject of the investigation.

“Furthermore, if Atiku Abubakar can spend $1.2 million 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 criticised 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.

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

The Presidency further questioned the motivation behind Atiku’s presidential ambition, alleging that 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 Tinubu 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,” the statement added.