The Presidency accuses Atiku Abubakar of undermining Nigeria’s sovereignty, while the former vice president demands factual answers over President Bola Tinubu’s US legal history

The Presidency and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar have exchanged sharp words over the Atiku Tinubu US forfeiture controversy, with President Bola Tinubu’s administration accusing the former vice president of undermining Nigeria’s sovereignty by seeking foreign scrutiny, while Atiku insists the government should answer questions surrounding the President’s alleged 1993 civil forfeiture case in the United States.

Also read: Atiku Hits Back at Tinubu Presidency Over Attacks

The dispute escalated on Thursday after reports that a lobbying group linked to Atiku had submitted petitions to US President Donald Trump and the US State Department concerning the long-running controversy.

In a statement signed by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency described the reported lobbying effort as an attempt to take domestic political disagreements outside Nigeria.

Onanuga argued that the 1993 case had been resolved more than three decades ago and did not result in a criminal conviction or finding of guilt against Tinubu.

He said attempts to revive the matter through paid foreign lobbyists amounted to “an attempt to externalise domestic politics and undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty.”

“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,” Onanuga said.

“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 maintained that the controversy had already been subjected to extensive legal scrutiny and had effectively been settled by Tinubu’s electoral victories in Lagos and at the national level, as well as subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

“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 said.

The administration then turned its attention to Atiku’s own history in the United States, citing the corruption case involving former US Congressman William Jefferson, who was convicted and imprisoned.

The Presidency also referenced a 2010 US Senate investigation chaired by Senator Carl Levin, titled Keeping Foreign Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories.

According to the Presidency, the investigation examined the use of offshore companies to move funds into the United States, including allegations involving money linked to multinational corporations.

It also pointed to references to Atiku’s former wife, Jennifer Douglas, in the Senate investigation.

Onanuga questioned why Atiku would spend money on US lobbyists to pursue scrutiny of Tinubu while, in his view, failing to address questions about his own legal history.

“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,” he said.

The Presidency also revived criticism of Atiku’s role in the privatisation programme during his tenure as vice president under former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

It accused the former vice president of overseeing what it called “an egregious privatisation heist”, alleging that national assets were sold to political associates at undervalued prices.

The administration linked the privatisation process to job losses and unpaid salaries and pensions, arguing that Atiku’s record in public office should be part of the political debate.

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

The Presidency went further, questioning Atiku’s motivation for seeking the presidency again in 2027 and alleging that his ambition was partly driven by a desire for diplomatic immunity and to avoid potential legal problems abroad.

Onanuga insisted, however, that Tinubu remained focused on his administration’s agenda and was not distracted by the controversy.

“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 said.

The exchange comes as Atiku prepares for another presidential contest after leaving the Peoples Democratic Party and aligning with the African Democratic Congress for the 2027 election.

Atiku contested the 2023 presidential election on the PDP platform but lost to Tinubu.

In his response, Atiku rejected the Presidency’s characterisation of his concerns as an attack on Nigeria’s sovereignty.

Through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president accused the administration of substituting personal attacks for answers to what he described as legitimate questions.

He said the Presidency had chosen “diversion over disclosure and insults over accountability”.

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

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

The former vice president argued that questioning publicly available records concerning the country’s highest office should not be interpreted as reporting Nigeria to a foreign government.

“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,” he said.

Atiku maintained that the records in question were not created by political opponents and argued that invoking national sovereignty could not prevent public scrutiny.

“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,” he added.

The former vice president also accused the Presidency of avoiding the substance of his concerns by reviving allegations about his own political and legal history.

“Nigerians can distinguish between political mudslinging and factual responses.

Personal attacks do not erase public records, nor do they substitute for transparency,” he said.

Atiku further challenged what he described as an inconsistency in the government’s position on international engagement.

He argued that a government that welcomes foreign investment, international endorsements and external financing should not reject international scrutiny when such scrutiny becomes politically uncomfortable.

“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,” Atiku said.

The former vice president also rejected the argument that Tinubu’s electoral victories had settled every question concerning public accountability.

“Elections confer political authority, but they do not extinguish the public’s right to ask questions,” he said.

“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 evidence if it believed the public record surrounding the case had been misunderstood or misrepresented.

“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 said.

The former vice president ended his response by directly challenging the administration to address the central allegation at the heart of the dispute.

“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,” Atiku said.

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

The confrontation has added another heated dimension to Nigeria’s increasingly competitive political landscape ahead of the 2027 general election, with both camps framing the controversy through sharply different lenses.

For the Presidency, the issue is primarily one of national sovereignty and the propriety of involving foreign actors in Nigeria’s domestic political disputes.

For Atiku, the central question is public accountability and whether the President’s past legal records have been adequately explained.

As the political contest ahead of 2027 gathers momentum, the exchange is unlikely to be the last word on the matter.

Also read: Tinubu’s Biggest Opponent Is Not Obi or Atiku… It’s Tinubu

The competing claims have also ensured that questions surrounding Tinubu’s US legal history, as well as Atiku’s own record, remain part of the increasingly fierce political debate between the two camps.