Atiku denies Obasanjo’s N5m bribery claim, links accusation to 2027 presidential race

Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has rejected allegations by former President Olusegun Obasanjo that he bribed the late Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ghali Umar Na’Abba, with N5 million to initiate impeachment proceedings against him, describing the claims as politically motivated and aimed at rewriting history ahead of the 2027 general election.

Atiku made the remarks in a statement titled “The Grave Is Not A Witness Box,” issued on Friday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, in response to allegations made by Obasanjo during the public presentation of his newly released memoir.

The former Vice President expressed concern that Obasanjo chose to raise the allegation only after the death of Na’Abba, arguing that the late lawmaker was no longer alive to either confirm or deny the claims.

According to Atiku, invoking a deceased person as the principal witness in such a serious allegation denies Nigerians the opportunity to hear the full account of events.

“As Africans, we understand the solemn duty of speaking truthfully about the dead. It is therefore deeply troubling that former President Obasanjo has chosen this moment to allege that I gave the late Rt. Hon. Ghali Umar Na’Abba a bribe to impeach him,” Atiku said.

He questioned why the allegation was never made while Na’Abba was alive.

“If this allegation were true, why did he never make it while Rt. Hon. Na’Abba was alive? Why wait until the only man who could confirm or refute the claim has departed this world? By invoking a deceased man as the principal witness to such a grave allegation, former President Obasanjo has denied Nigerians the opportunity of hearing the other side of the story.”

The ADC presidential candidate maintained that if such a bribery incident had truly occurred during the Obasanjo administration, appropriate legal and institutional measures would have followed.

He argued that no criminal investigation, prosecution, judicial pronouncement or official report had ever established that he bribed Na’Abba or orchestrated an impeachment plot against the former President.

READ ALSO:

• US Condemns Killing of Pastor Dachomo’s Family Members in Plateau, Demands Justice
• US Imposes 12.5% Tariff on Nigerian Imports Over Forced Labour Claims
• “Don’t Let Me Die”: Veteran Nollywood Actress Ngozi Nwosu Begs for ₦30m Surgery Fund

Atiku further alleged that the timing of the accusation, coming as political alignments ahead of the 2027 presidential election gather momentum, suggested an attempt to influence public opinion and weaken his political standing.

“Coming at a time when the political landscape ahead of the 2027 general election is taking shape, the obvious objective is to besmirch my person and reputation and confer an undeserved political advantage on the former President’s kinsman. Nigerians, however, know better. They are too discerning to be distracted by stale allegations resurrected for political convenience.”

The former Vice President also revisited the political disagreements that marked his relationship with Obasanjo while they served in office, insisting that their fallout stemmed largely from his opposition to the former President’s controversial third-term agenda.

According to Atiku, he chose to defend constitutional democracy and the rule of law instead of supporting any move to extend presidential tenure beyond constitutional limits.

“My offence was that I stood firmly against the unconstitutional third-term agenda. As a democrat, I chose the path of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Rather than surrender democratic principles on the altar of personal ambition, I defended the Constitution and successfully asserted my rights through the courts in a series of landmark legal victories against a sitting President.”

He added that those legal battles had become an important chapter in Nigeria’s democratic history and suggested that lingering political differences continued to shape Obasanjo’s perception of him.

Atiku said he would not allow disputes from more than two decades ago to distract attention from the pressing challenges facing Nigerians, including rising inflation, food insecurity, public debt, unemployment and insecurity.

“The task before leaders today is not to rewrite history but to rescue the future. Nigerians are more interested in knowing why food prices continue to soar, why public debt continues to rise despite increased revenues, and why scandal after scandal continues to trail the current administration than in revisiting political disagreements from over two decades ago.”

He also stated that Obasanjo was entitled to support any candidate in the 2027 presidential election, but urged the former President to openly declare his preferred aspirant rather than make allegations he described as unfounded.

“If former President Obasanjo has chosen to take a political position ahead of 2027, he should simply declare it and allow Nigerians to make their judgment based on the issues, records and vision presented by those seeking to lead the country.”

The response followed comments made by Obasanjo during the unveiling of his memoir, in which the former President alleged that Atiku secretly backed an impeachment plot against him during his first term in office.

Obasanjo claimed that Atiku invited the late Speaker, Ghali Umar Na’Abba, to his office while he was away from Abuja and allegedly handed him N5 million to commence impeachment proceedings. According to the former President, the alleged meeting was later reported to him by his then Chief of Staff, whom he described as a professional intelligence officer.

The renewed exchange has brought back one of the most enduring political rivalries in Nigeria, with both leaders once serving on the same presidential ticket before their relationship deteriorated during Obasanjo’s second term in office.

As political activities ahead of the 2027 general election continue to gather pace, the latest war of words between the two prominent politicians is expected to fuel fresh debate over Nigeria’s political history, accountability and leadership.

Atiku denies Obasanjo’s N5m bribery claim, links accusation to 2027 presidential race

Court Stops EFCC’s “Fishing Expedition” as Makinde Links Probe to APC Warning Over 2027 Election

Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, has alleged that a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) warned him against contesting the 2027 presidential election against President Bola Tinubu, just one day before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) requested extensive financial records from his administration.

Makinde disclosed this in his July 2026 monthly newsletter while reacting to Wednesday’s judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan, which restrained the EFCC from proceeding with aspects of its planned investigation into the finances of the Oyo State Government. The governor said the warning came on June 1, 2025, shortly after President Tinubu had been endorsed by the APC as its sole presidential candidate for the 2027 election.

According to Makinde, the sequence of events began after he appeared on Channels Television on April 15, 2025, where he responded to a question on his presidential ambition, stating that he had the capacity to occupy the highest office in the country, although he had not formally declared his intention to run. The governor said political reactions followed the interview, and on June 1, 2025, an APC chieftain publicly warned him against contesting the presidency, describing such a candidacy as “an exercise in futility” and advising the opposition not to waste its time. The warning came shortly after the APC endorsed President Bola Tinubu as its sole presidential candidate for the 2027 election. “The following day, 2 June 2025, the EFCC wrote to the Accountant-General of Oyo State demanding copies of every contract involving the Oyo State Government and details of all transactions and payments made to contractors from 2021 to the date of its letter. No contractor was identified. No company was named. No questionable transaction or alleged offence was stated.” Makinde said his administration did not refuse to cooperate with the anti-graft agency but instead asked the EFCC to specify the contractors, companies, or transactions under investigation so that the relevant documents could be provided. “The EFCC did not respond, prompting the Oyo State Government to seek judicial interpretation of whether such a broad request was lawful,” he added.

READ ALSO:

• Osun election: Àtàọ́ja should stop running joro-jara-joro
• Dollar to Naira Exchange Rate Today: Naira Holds Steady as Fuel Importer Demand Mounts
• Senate Bill Requiring Social Media Offices in Nigeria Gains Stakeholder Support at Public Hearing

The Federal High Court delivered judgment in suit number FHC/IB/CS/61/2025, filed by the Oyo State Government against the anti-graft agency. Justice Nkeonye Maha, who delivered the judgment on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, acknowledged the EFCC’s statutory powers to investigate financial crimes but held that such powers must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law. According to a statement by Makinde’s Special Adviser on Media, Sulaimon Olarenwaju, the court found that “The EFCC’s proposed investigation into Oyo State’s finances, particularly the demands contained in its letter of 2 June 2025, was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition. His Lordship noted that the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs to fair hearing could not be trampled upon under the guise of investigation.” The court held that any request for information by the EFCC must be reasonable and linked to identifiable allegations or offences under the EFCC Act. Justice Maha ruled that Section 38 of the EFCC Act empowers the Commission to obtain information only for the purpose of investigating offences within its jurisdiction and does not authorise speculative or blanket investigations into the affairs of individuals or institutions. The judge set aside the EFCC’s letter dated June 2, 2025, and declared that any request by the Commission must be reasonable and tied to specific allegations.

Makinde stressed that his administration was not opposed to accountability or legitimate scrutiny and that no government should be shielded from investigation. However, he argued that such probes must be based on identifiable facts. “Accountability must be evidence-based,” he said, warning against broad investigations conducted merely in the hope of discovering wrongdoing. The governor described the court’s judgment as “a victory for the rule of law, not against the EFCC,” saying it reinforces the principle that government institutions, including law enforcement agencies, must operate within established constitutional and legal boundaries. “No government should be beyond legitimate investigation. Our administration is not beyond scrutiny, and we have never asked to be. But accountability must be based on evidence. An investigation should not begin with a blanket search through years of records in the hope that something incriminating might eventually be found.” Makinde said he would not speculate on the motive behind the EFCC’s letter but invited Nigerians to consider the sequence of events and draw their own conclusions. “Perhaps the timing of the EFCC’s letter was coincidental. I will not speculate about motives. Nigerians can consider the chronology and reach their own conclusions.”

Meanwhile, the Oyo State chapter of the APC has condemned the court ruling, describing it as a setback for accountability. The party’s Publicity Secretary, Wasiu Sadare, alleged that Governor Makinde was making desperate efforts to prevent the EFCC from examining the financial records of his administration. “The question on the lips of many patriots now is: Why would a governor be afraid to render an account of resources entrusted to him for the benefit of the citizenry? What size of skeleton does Governor Makinde have in the cupboard that he is keeping away from us?” the APC stated. The APC listed several projects it claimed would eventually come under investigation, including the exercise book printing contract, rehabilitation of the Lekan Salami Stadium, the Circular Road project, renovation of the Agodi Government House, construction of bus terminals, upgrade of Alakia Airport, and alleged unremitted deductions from workers’ salaries. “The truth is that he can only run but he cannot hide. EFCC and other anti-graft agencies will do their work at the appropriate time, and all the lid will be blown open,” the party added. In response, Makinde’s administration dismissed the allegations, insisting that its decision to approach the court was not an attempt to stop any investigation but to seek judicial clarification. The government stated that Governor Makinde has managed the state’s resources prudently and has nothing to hide. “Seeking judicial interpretation of the EFCC’s powers is neither cowardice nor an act of fear. Governor Makinde and the Oyo State Government are not afraid of the EFCC or any other federal agency. The state’s account books will be made available whenever a proper and lawful request is made.” The government added that the APC’s claim that Makinde’s decision to seek judicial intervention amounts to avoiding investigation is “both misleading and legally unfounded. Resorting to the courts is not an admission of guilt but a constitutional right guaranteed under Nigerian law.” The governor also addressed speculation about his presidential ambition, saying: “Let me be clear: I did not step forward in order to step down. I am going forward. I am going forward because Nigerians deserve better.” He added that Nigerians deserve institutions that serve the law rather than political interests and leaders who will defend the public interest even when doing so is inconvenient.

Court Stops EFCC’s “Fishing Expedition” as Makinde Links Probe to APC Warning Over 2027 Election

Presidency, Obasanjo attack Atiku over US lobbying, reopen decades-old loyalty dispute

The political battle ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election intensified on Thursday as the Presidency and former President Olusegun Obasanjo launched separate attacks on African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, accusing him of attempting to internationalise Nigeria’s domestic politics and reviving long-standing allegations of political disloyalty.

The Presidency faulted Atiku over reports that he engaged a United States lobbying firm to petition U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. State Department and members of the U.S. Congress over President Bola Tinubu’s 1993 civil forfeiture case in the United States.

According to the Presidency, the matter had been conclusively settled by both American authorities and Nigeria’s Supreme Court, making any fresh attempt to revive it unnecessary and politically motivated.

In a statement titled “When Will Atiku Abubakar Report Himself to President Trump?”, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, described Atiku’s reported move as an attempt to draw foreign governments into Nigeria’s internal political affairs.

Onanuga argued that Nigeria is a sovereign nation whose electoral and constitutional disputes should be resolved through its democratic institutions rather than by foreign governments.

He said the issue surrounding President Tinubu’s U.S. civil forfeiture had already undergone extensive judicial scrutiny during the 2023 presidential election litigation.

Following the 2023 election, Atiku Abubakar had challenged Tinubu’s eligibility before the Supreme Court, citing records relating to the 1993 civil forfeiture case in the United States.

However, the apex court ruled that the forfeiture was a civil settlement involving bank accounts and not a criminal conviction or indictment against Tinubu. The court held that there was no evidence that the President had been arraigned, tried or convicted of any criminal offence in the United States.

The Presidency also recalled that in December 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed a similar suit filed by Ambrose Owuru of the Hope Democratic Party seeking Tinubu’s removal over the same issue. The court described the case as frivolous and imposed a ₦5 million fine on the plaintiff.

Onanuga maintained that the legal questions surrounding the matter had been settled both judicially and politically through the electoral process.

READ ALSO:

• Iran Vows Continuous Strikes if US Doesn’t Halt Attacks as Middle East War Spreads to Red Sea
• 68 Lawyers Elevated to Senior Advocate of Nigeria Rank in 2026 Exercise (Full List)
• House of Reps Passes State Police Bill with 311 Votes, Moves Nigeria to Decentralised Policing

He criticised Atiku for allegedly hiring foreign lobbyists to revisit issues already determined by Nigeria’s highest court, saying such actions amounted to externalising Nigeria’s domestic politics.

According to him, lobbying may be acceptable within the American political system, but using it to challenge decisions already settled by Nigerian institutions undermines the country’s sovereignty.

The presidential spokesman also questioned Atiku’s political approach, arguing that rather than presenting alternative solutions to Nigeria’s economic, security and governance challenges, the former vice president had chosen to focus on lobbying efforts abroad.

He further alleged that Atiku had spent about $1.2 million on lobbying activities in the United States aimed at reviving the decades-old forfeiture issue.

Beyond the lobbying controversy, Onanuga also revisited allegations linked to the administration in which Atiku served as vice president between 1999 and 2007, accusing him of supervising a privatisation programme that allegedly transferred strategic national assets to politically connected individuals at undervalued prices.

He claimed the programme resulted in job losses and pension challenges, allegations that have long remained part of Nigeria’s political debates.

The Presidency insisted that President Tinubu remains focused on implementing his Renewed Hope Agenda, stabilising the economy, attracting investment and improving national security rather than responding to political attacks.

Obasanjo revives loyalty allegations

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo separately reopened his long-running political disagreement with Atiku, accusing his former deputy of working against his administration during the build-up to the 2003 presidential election.

In a letter dated July 23, 2026, titled “Reply to Your Inaccurate Posture: How Obasanjo Deceived Us in 2003,” Obasanjo alleged that Atiku supported efforts by the House of Representatives under then Speaker Ghali Umar Na’Abba to impeach him while both men were serving in office.

According to the former president, the alleged impeachment plot originated from within the Presidency and formed part of a broader political strategy to prevent him from securing a second term.

Obasanjo also revisited the controversial “Mandela Option”, a political proposal advanced by Atiku and some governors before the 2003 election, which suggested that he should complete only one term before handing over power.

He claimed the proposal was designed to position Atiku as president and ultimately destroyed the trust that had existed between them.

The former president recalled that after eventually securing re-election in 2003, relations between him and Atiku deteriorated significantly.

Throughout his second term, Obasanjo gradually withdrew many of the official responsibilities previously assigned to Atiku, with both leaders operating in an atmosphere of growing political mistrust until they left office in 2007.

Obasanjo also defended his decision not to support Atiku’s presidential ambition after leaving office, maintaining that he believed the former vice president had not demonstrated the loyalty expected of a deputy.

Political tensions rise ahead of 2027

The latest exchange highlights the increasingly heated political atmosphere ahead of the 2027 general election, with the opposition ADC positioning itself as a major challenger to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Political analysts believe the renewed confrontation underscores how past political relationships and unresolved rivalries are resurfacing as parties intensify consultations, coalition talks and campaign preparations.

While the Presidency insists that the legal issues surrounding President Tinubu’s U.S. forfeiture case have been conclusively settled, Atiku’s allies have continued to argue that questions relating to transparency, accountability and public interest deserve continued scrutiny.

With political alignments gathering momentum, observers expect the exchanges between leading political figures to become even more pronounced as Nigeria moves closer to the next presidential election.

Presidency, Obasanjo attack Atiku over US lobbying, reopen decades-old loyalty dispute