•Atiku and Tinubu
Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, came under heavy criticism yesterday from the presidency and former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
The presidency chided the former vice president for petitioning United States President Donald Trump over an issue it said was settled more than 30 years ago, reports The Nation.
It noted that Atiku had also unsuccessfully raised the issue before the Supreme Court after the 2023 presidential election.
Obasanjo, on his part, accused Atiku of betraying his trust ahead of the 2003 elections when they worked together as President and Vice President.
The Supreme Court, in 2023, dismissed Atiku’s prayer seeking the disqualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over a 1993 civil forfeiture in the United States.
During the 2023 election petitions, the apex court ruled that the $460,000 forfeiture was a civil settlement involving bank accounts rather than a personal criminal conviction.
The court held that there was no evidence that President Tinubu was indicted, arraigned, tried or convicted of any criminal offence in the United States.
Also, in December 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed a separate direct suit filed by Ambrose Owuru of the Hope Democratic Party (HDP), seeking President Tinubu’s removal based on the same U.S. matter, describing the suit as “frivolous.”
The court unanimously dismissed the suit and fined Owuru N5 million.
In a statement titled: “When Will Atiku Abubakar Report Himself to President Trump?”, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, alleged that Atiku’s decision to hire lobbyists in the United States to petition President Donald Trump, the U.S. State Department and members of Congress over the decades-old civil forfeiture case was an attempt to internationalise Nigeria’s domestic politics.
Onanuga said the move was unbecoming of a former vice president and presidential candidate, adding that Atiku’s long-standing ambition to become president had overshadowed the restraint, decorum and statesmanship expected of a political elder.
He added: “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 U.S. President Donald Trump and members of the U.S. Congress.”
Onanuga recalled that the subject of the lobbying campaign was a 1993 civil forfeiture case that had been resolved more than three decades ago without any criminal conviction.
The presidential spokesman insisted that the issue had been exhaustively litigated and effectively settled through President Tinubu’s electoral victories in Lagos State and at the national level, as well as the Supreme Court’s judgments after the 2023 presidential election.
Onanuga said: “This issue was resolved over 30 years ago in the United States and has been thoroughly litigated, explained and rendered moot by the electoral mandates conferred on President Bola Tinubu by the people of Lagos and Nigeria at large.
“Reviving this matter today is an affront to the intelligence of Nigerians and an attempt to rewrite history for personal gain.”
He maintained that Nigeria is a sovereign country that should not be subjected to external political pressure orchestrated by domestic political actors.
Onanuga added: “It is important to remind Atiku and his associates that Nigeria is a sovereign nation, not a satellite of any foreign power.
“Reporting the President of Nigeria to another country’s leader is not only inappropriate but also undermines the nation’s dignity and independence.”
The presidential adviser said that while lobbying is recognised within the American political system, employing foreign lobbyists to promote allegations previously canvassed during the 2023 election amounted to an effort to externalise Nigeria’s internal political contest.
He said: “Nigerians resolved this matter at the ballot in February 2023 and in the Supreme Court. That verdict stands, and Atiku’s latest fishing expedition will amount to nought.”
Onanuga questioned Atiku’s legal standing in the United States, alleging that he featured in investigations linked to the William Jefferson corruption scandal and a 2010 U.S. Senate report titled: “Keeping foreign corruption out of the United States: Four case histories.”
He alleged that the report documented financial transactions involving Atiku and Jennifer Douglas through offshore companies but did not state that Atiku had been convicted by any American court.
The presidential spokesman accused Atiku of seeking the presidency to obtain diplomatic immunity and shield himself from potential legal challenges abroad.
He also criticised the privatisation programme implemented during the administration in which Atiku served as vice president between 1999 and 2007, alleging that strategic national assets were sold to political associates at undervalued prices.
Onanuga said: “Nigerians have not forgotten the legacy of the privatisation programme under Atiku’s watch.
“He presided over an egregious privatisation heist, selling national assets to cronies for peanuts and causing thousands of job losses and unpaid salaries and pensions that President Tinubu is clearing today.”
He said that rather than offering alternative policy proposals on the economy, security and governance, Atiku had chosen to focus on media campaigns and lobbying efforts outside Nigeria.
According to Onanuga, “the challenges Nigeria faces require serious engagement, thoughtful solutions and leadership at home, not grandstanding abroad.”
He insisted that President Tinubu remained focused on implementing his Renewed Hope Agenda and would not be distracted by political opponents.
Onanuga said: “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.”
Atiku behind plot to impeach me, says Obasanjo
Also yesterday, former President Obasanjo said Atiku, who served as his deputy between 1999 and 2007, was behind moves by the House of Representatives, led by then Speaker Ghali Umar Na’Abba, to impeach him.
He said the plot originated from within the Presidency, insisting that the former vice president worked against him by encouraging efforts to limit him to a single term in office.
In the run-up to the second democratic election of the Fourth Republic, Atiku and some governors of the then ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) canvassed what they called the “Mandela Option” – a proposal modelled after the single term served by the late Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa.
Atiku was being positioned to succeed Obasanjo.
Media reports at the time indicated that Obasanjo eventually swallowed his pride and appealed to the governors to persuade Atiku and other promoters of the “Mandela Option” campaign to support his second-term bid.
Throughout Obasanjo’s second term, he stripped Atiku of virtually all the responsibilities he had assigned to him during the first term, and both men operated in an atmosphere of mutual distrust.
Obasanjo reflected on their frosty relationship in a letter dated July 23, 2026, titled: “Reply to Your Inaccurate Posture: ‘How Obasanjo Deceived Us in 2003.”
The letter was the former president’s response to former Ogun State Governor Olusegun Osoba’s reflections on the 2003 elections, published in ‘The Legal Observer’ on July 20.
After handing over to the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Obasanjo justified his refusal to support Atiku’s presidential ambition, saying the former vice president was not loyal.
He added that God would not forgive him if he handed over power to Atiku.
In the letter, Obasanjo also claimed that a political arrangement was proposed under which the six Alliance for Democracy (AD) governors in the Southwest would remain unchallenged in the 2003 elections in exchange for supporting Atiku’s presidential ambition.
