PRESIDENCY, ATIKU CLASH OVER TINUBU’S U.S. FORFEITURE CASE

The Presidency described the move as an attempt to undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty, insisting the decades-old case had long been resolved and should not be resurrected through foreign lobbying.

In a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the 1993 forfeiture matter ended more than 30 years ago without any criminal conviction or finding of guilt against Tinubu.

Onanuga said taking the issue before foreign authorities amounted to exporting Nigeria’s domestic politics and diminishing the country’s independence.

“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,” he said.

The Presidency argued that Nigerians had already settled the matter through the 2023 presidential election and subsequent Supreme Court judgment affirming Tinubu’s victory.

“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 added.

It also turned the spotlight on Atiku’s legal history in the United States, referencing the William Jefferson bribery scandal and a 2010 U.S. Senate investigation titled Keeping Foreign Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories.

According to the Presidency, the report detailed allegations that Atiku used offshore companies to transfer suspicious funds, including alleged bribes from multinational firms, into the United States. It added that Atiku’s former wife, Jennifer Douglas, was also mentioned in the 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 further criticised Atiku’s role in the privatisation programme carried out during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, alleging that national assets were sold below value to associates, resulting in 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 Atiku’s motive for seeking the presidency, alleging that his ambition was driven by a desire to secure diplomatic immunity and avoid possible legal issues abroad.

Onanuga maintained that President Tinubu remained focused on governance despite 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 is not distracted by political actors, perennial losers like Atiku, who now seek validation abroad,” he said.

Responding, Atiku accused the Presidency of avoiding the real issues by launching personal attacks instead of addressing questions surrounding Tinubu’s alleged forfeiture of funds to the U.S. government.

In a statement signed by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former Vice President said the administration had chosen “diversion over disclosure and insults over accountability.”

He argued that Nigerians deserved facts rather than political attacks.

“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 claims that raising questions about publicly available records amounted to undermining 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,” he said.

He also faulted the Presidency for reviving old allegations against him rather than addressing the concerns 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.

Atiku further argued that the administration could not welcome foreign investment and international partnerships while rejecting international scrutiny.

“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 maintained that Tinubu’s election victory did not remove the public’s right to demand accountability.

“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 stated.

Calling for a factual response from the government, 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 concluded that 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 said.