Explain $460k US Forfeiture, $9m Deal: Atiku Fires Back at Tinubu
Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has challenged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to address and explain judicial records surrounding a $460,000 forfeiture in the United States, rather than attacking the lobbyist hired to represent his interests in Washington.
Atiku’s position was articulated in a statement released on Wednesday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu. The statement was issued in direct response to recent remarks made by Sunday Dare, the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications.
In his comments, Dare had criticized Atiku for retaining the US lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York. He also cautioned the public against claims that the firm’s managing partner, Karl Von Batten, had access to US President Donald Trump or his administration, or that he possessed the ability to influence ongoing court proceedings.
However, Shaibu argued that by focusing heavily on the personal background and professional activities of Atiku’s lobbyist, the Presidency was deliberately circumventing the substantive matters raised by American judicial records.
Judicial Records and Foreign Registration
Atiku engaged the US lobbying firm in March for $1.2 million to safeguard and enhance his reputational standing within the United States. According to official filings submitted to the US Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a primary objective of the contractual engagement was to counterbalance the Nigerian government’s lobbying narratives in the US.
In July, the firm disclosed that it had begun distributing US Department of Justice records concerning drug trafficking allegations related to Tinubu to members of the Trump administration, members of Congress, and senior congressional staff.
Shaibu stated that Atiku’s agreement with the lobbying firm was formally and publicly registered with the US Department of Justice, meaning it could not legitimately be characterized as a covert effort to influence decision-makers in Washington.
He directly challenged Tinubu to clarify why his name appears in historical US federal narcotics and money-laundering records, and why a US District Court entered a decree forfeiting $460,000 held in a bank account under his name.
“These are not documents written by Atiku Abubakar. They were not manufactured by Karl Von Batten. They form part of an American judicial record,” Shaibu said.
While acknowledging that a civil forfeiture does not amount to a criminal conviction, Shaibu maintained that the physical existence of the court record cannot simply be dismissed through political attacks.
Controversy Over Lobbying Expenditure
Shaibu further accused the Tinubu administration of hypocrisy regarding its criticism of Atiku’s $1.2 million lobbying contract.
He alleged that the administration had entered into its own deal with the DCI Group worth $750,000 monthly, totaling $4.5 million for the initial six months, with contract terms that could potentially raise the full commitment to $9 million.
Asserting that both Tinubu and Atiku hold equal legal rights to hire lobbyists, Shaibu questioned why Atiku’s decision was being framed by government officials as an act of desperation.
He emphasized that public discourse should instead remain centered on the socio-economic hardship currently confronting everyday Nigerians, including rising food and transportation costs, escalating electricity bills, widespread insecurity, and diminishing purchasing power.
Shaibu ultimately called on Tinubu to fully account for his administration’s alleged multimillion-dollar lobbying deal before attempting to criticize Atiku’s $1.2 million engagement.
“President Tinubu, before counting Atiku’s $1.2 million, account for your own $9 million arrangement. And before attacking the messenger, answer the $460,000 question,” Shaibu said.