The former vice president says personal attacks cannot replace factual answers as the Presidency defends President Bola Tinubu over questions linked to a US forfeiture case

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has accused President Bola Tinubu’s administration of avoiding substantive answers and resorting to personal attacks, escalating a political dispute over questions linked to a 1993 United States civil forfeiture case involving the President.

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

Atiku’s latest response, issued in Abuja on Thursday, July 23, 2026, came after the Presidency accused the former vice president of undermining Nigeria’s sovereignty by engaging a Washington-based lobbying firm to present documents concerning the long-running US case to President Donald Trump’s administration and members of Congress.

The Atiku Tinubu Presidency dispute has since developed into a broader argument over transparency, international scrutiny and the limits of political accountability, with both sides trading sharply worded accusations.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said the Presidency had failed to address the questions he raised and instead relied on what he described as name-calling and political invective.

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

The former vice president, who is the African Democratic Congress presidential candidate, argued that questions based on publicly available records should not be treated 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,” he said.

Atiku said the records in question were not created by the opposition, the ADC or any political actor, arguing that the appropriate response to public concerns should be factual clarification rather than personal attacks.

“Attempting to silence legitimate public inquiry by wrapping oneself in the national flag does not answer the questions before the country,” he added.

The dispute was triggered by the activities of Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., a Washington-based lobbying firm engaged by Atiku. The firm said it had begun sharing documents with officials of the Trump administration, members of Congress and congressional staff concerning a US Department of Justice case dating back to 1993.

According to the firm, the documents included more than 60 pages of Department of Justice records relating to allegations connected to a heroin trafficking investigation spanning the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The lobbying firm also circulated a chronology concerning the 1993 US Department of Justice heroin-proceeds forfeiture case and subsequent Freedom of Information Act litigation.

The case referenced in the documents, United States v. Funds in Account No. 263226700 et al., was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and involved funds the US government alleged were proceeds of narcotics trafficking or connected to money laundering activities.

The Presidency, however, has maintained that the matter was resolved more than three decades ago and did not result in a criminal conviction against Tinubu.

In a statement issued by Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency described Atiku’s decision to engage US officials as an attempt to externalise domestic political disputes.

“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 also sought to turn the scrutiny towards Atiku, citing allegations and references to his past legal and financial affairs in the United States.

Onanuga referred to the William Jefferson bribery scandal involving a former US congressman 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 alleged that the Senate report documented the use of offshore companies by Atiku to move suspect funds into the United States. It also referred to Atiku’s former wife, Jennifer Douglas, in connection with the investigation.

Onanuga further questioned the amount reportedly spent on lobbying and challenged Atiku to clarify what he described as his own legal standing in the United States.

“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,” he said.

The Presidency also criticised Atiku’s record as vice president under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, particularly the privatisation programme conducted during the administration.

It described the process as “an egregious privatisation heist” and alleged that national assets were sold to political allies at undervalued prices. The statement also questioned Atiku’s motivation for seeking the presidency.

Atiku, however, dismissed the Presidency’s approach as a diversion from the questions at the centre of the controversy.

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

He also criticised what he described as an inconsistent approach to international engagement, arguing that governments should not welcome international validation while rejecting scrutiny from abroad.

“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 further argued that winning an election did not place elected officials beyond public 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.

The Presidency has continued to defend Tinubu, insisting that the President remains focused on his administration’s economic and security agenda despite the renewed political controversy.

Onanuga said Tinubu was “unfazed” by Atiku’s actions and remained focused on what the Presidency described as the Renewed Hope Agenda, including economic stabilisation, investment attraction, national security and Nigeria’s international standing.

For Atiku, however, the central issue remains whether the questions arising from publicly available US records have been adequately addressed.

“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.

He maintained that the Nigerian public deserved clear explanations rather than political attacks.

“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.

The Presidency has rejected the implication that the historical forfeiture proceedings amount to evidence of criminal guilt, while Atiku has continued to argue that the public has a legitimate right to examine the available records and seek clarification.

The politically charged exchange comes as Nigeria’s opposition landscape continues to take shape ahead of the 2027 general elections, with Atiku emerging as the ADC’s presidential candidate and Tinubu expected to seek another term under the All Progressives Congress.

The latest clash therefore extends beyond the historical US case, placing questions of transparency, political accountability and Nigeria’s sovereignty at the centre of an increasingly intense contest between the former vice president and the Presidency.

Also read: Atiku Abubakar Sympathises with Flood-Hit Lagos Residents

For now, neither side appears willing to retreat, with Atiku demanding factual answers and the Presidency maintaining that the former vice president is using international lobbying to pursue a domestic political agenda.