Presidency Should Explain Tinubu’s $460,000 Forfeiture, Not Attack My Lobbyist — Atiku
Former Vice-President and presidential hopeful under the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has challenged the Presidency to address questions surrounding President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s reported $460,000 forfeiture in the United States, rather than focusing its criticism on the lobbyist engaged by his political camp.
Atiku’s position came amid a fresh war of words between his camp and the Presidency over his decision to retain a Washington-based lobbying firm to advance his interests and engage policymakers in the United States.
The former vice-president’s response followed criticism from the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, over Atiku’s engagement of the American lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C.
In a statement issued by Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice-president argued that the Presidency should concentrate on addressing questions arising from publicly available U.S. court records rather than attacking the individual or firm representing him.
‘Answer the $460,000 Question’
Atiku’s camp specifically drew attention to a 1993 U.S. court proceeding involving $460,000 held in an account associated with Tinubu, which was forfeited to the United States government.
The former vice-president’s camp said the issue remained a legitimate subject of public discussion and demanded an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the forfeiture.
It, however, acknowledged that a civil forfeiture proceeding should not automatically be interpreted as a criminal conviction.
The central argument, according to Atiku’s camp, is that the existence of the court record and the circumstances surrounding the forfeiture deserve clarification, particularly given Tinubu’s position as Nigeria’s President.
“Before attacking the messenger, answer the $460,000 question,” Atiku’s camp said.
Lobbying Deal Sparks Fresh Political Controversy
The controversy was triggered by Atiku’s reported engagement of Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., a Washington-based lobbying firm.
Documents filed under the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) indicate that the firm was retained to provide lobbying and public-relations services connected to Atiku’s political interests.
The engagement has attracted criticism from political opponents, who have questioned the wisdom and purpose of spending such an amount on lobbying activities in the United States ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election.
Atiku’s camp, however, maintains that engaging lobbyists is a legitimate political and diplomatic practice and that the firm’s activities are properly disclosed under U.S. law.
Atiku Camp Accuses Presidency of Double Standards
The former vice-president’s camp also accused the Federal Government of hypocrisy over its criticism of his lobbying arrangement.
According to Shaibu, the Nigerian government has itself engaged a U.S.-based lobbying firm, DCI Group, under an arrangement that he claimed could cost millions of dollars.
He therefore questioned why Atiku’s reported $1.2 million engagement should be portrayed as an act of desperation when the government was allegedly spending considerably more on similar international lobbying efforts.
The Presidency has yet to publicly accept the characterisation of its activities as comparable to Atiku’s private political engagement.
Battle Lines Drawn Ahead of 2027
The latest exchange underscores the increasingly confrontational nature of the political contest ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
With Atiku now positioning himself within the ADC-led opposition coalition, issues surrounding the personal records, political histories and international activities of major contenders are expected to feature prominently in the emerging campaign.
The controversy over the reported U.S. forfeiture is particularly sensitive because it involves historical court records concerning the incumbent President. At the same time, claims made by either political camp require careful scrutiny and should not be treated as established facts without documentary and official verification.
For now, Atiku’s challenge is straightforward: rather than attacking the messenger, the Presidency should address the underlying questions raised by the historical U.S. court records.
The Presidency’s response to that challenge could determine whether the controversy fades as another episode in the emerging 2027 political battle—or develops into a much broader debate over accountability, transparency and the public records of Nigeria’s political leadership.