What Tinubu told Atiku over moves to lobby US

The Presidency on Thursday launched a fresh attack on former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, accusing him of attempting to internationalise Nigeria’s domestic politics by allegedly lobbying United States President Donald Trump and members of the US Congress over President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The Presidency described the move as unbecoming of an elder statesman, insisting that taking complaints about a sitting Nigerian president to a foreign government amounted to an affront to Nigeria’s sovereignty and democratic institutions. Blueprint reports

In a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency questioned Atiku’s continued pursuit of the presidency, arguing that his political ambition had overshadowed the virtues of statesmanship, decorum and patriotism.

According to the statement, Atiku’s alleged lobbying campaign in the United States centred on a civil forfeiture case involving President Tinubu dating back to 1993, a matter the Presidency maintained had long been resolved and had no criminal conviction or finding of guilt against the president.

Presidency dismisses renewed allegations

The Presidency said the issues surrounding the decades-old civil forfeiture case had been extensively litigated both in the United States and during Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election and subsequent legal battles.

It argued that President Tinubu’s electoral victory, affirmed by the Supreme Court, had effectively settled the matter politically and legally.

“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,” the statement read.

According to Onanuga, reviving allegations from more than 30 years ago was an attempt to rewrite history for political advantage and an insult to the intelligence of Nigerians.

The Presidency further maintained that Nigerians had already made their decision through the ballot and the courts, adding that revisiting the matter abroad would not alter the country’s democratic verdict.

Nigeria is a sovereign nation

The Presidency stressed that Nigeria remains an independent nation whose internal political disputes should not be exported to foreign governments.

It described the alleged engagement of American lobbyists to pursue political objectives against a sitting Nigerian president as inappropriate and contrary to the conduct expected of a former vice president.

While acknowledging that lobbying is recognised within the American political system, the Presidency argued that employing foreign agents to circulate what it described as discredited documents against the Nigerian president amounted to an attempt to undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty.

The statement urged Atiku to respect the office he aspires to occupy and refrain from actions capable of diminishing the country’s image before the international community.

Presidency raises questions over Atiku’s legal history

The statement also turned attention to Atiku’s own past dealings in the United States, challenging the former vice president to clarify what it described as his legal standing in the country.

According to the Presidency, Atiku’s name featured prominently in investigations linked to the William Jefferson bribery scandal involving the former United States congressman who was later convicted and imprisoned.

The statement further referenced a 2010 report by the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations titled Keeping Foreign Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories.

According to the Presidency, the report examined financial transactions allegedly involving Atiku and his former wife, Jennifer Douglas, including the use of offshore companies to transfer funds into the United States.

The Presidency argued that anyone spending what it claimed was 1.2 million dollars on lobbying efforts in Washington should first address questions surrounding his own record.

Criticism of privatisation programme

Beyond the latest political controversy, the Presidency revisited Atiku’s tenure as vice president between 1999 and 2007, criticising the privatisation programme implemented during that period.

It alleged that several national assets were disposed of below value to politically connected individuals, resulting in widespread job losses and outstanding salary and pension obligations.

The statement claimed that the Tinubu administration was now addressing some of the economic consequences of those policies.

The Presidency further argued that Atiku’s political campaign lacked substantive policy alternatives for addressing Nigeria’s economic and security challenges.

Instead, it accused the former vice president of relying on media campaigns and foreign lobbying rather than engaging Nigerians on practical solutions.

Tinubu focused on governance

The Presidency insisted that President Tinubu remained focused on implementing his Renewed Hope Agenda despite political criticism from opposition figures.

According to Onanuga, the administration is concentrating on stabilising the economy, attracting foreign investment, strengthening national security and improving Nigeria’s standing within the international community.

He dismissed Atiku’s actions as political theatrics that would not distract the president from governance.

The statement concluded that Nigerians would ultimately judge political leaders based on their records and capacity to provide solutions rather than sustained political campaigns conducted outside the country’s borders.

The latest exchange adds to the growing political rivalry between President Tinubu and Atiku ahead of the 2027 general elections, with both camps increasingly engaging in public exchanges over governance, past records and international perception.

The Presidency maintained that Nigeria’s democratic institutions had already settled issues arising from the 2023 presidential election and urged political actors to channel their energies towards constructive engagement on national development rather than seeking foreign intervention in domestic political matters.