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

Ondo Speaker given Sunday deadline to resign or face impeachment

A fresh political crisis has erupted in the Ondo State House of Assembly after a majority of lawmakers reportedly gave Speaker Olamide Oladiji until Sunday to resign or face impeachment over allegations of financial misconduct linked to the Ondo State Oil-Producing Areas Development Commission (OSOPADEC) budget.

The latest development marks a significant escalation in the leadership dispute within the Assembly, with 21 of the 26 lawmakers said to have endorsed an impeachment notice against the Speaker, signalling that he may have lost the confidence of a substantial majority of members.

The lawmakers accuse Oladiji of improperly handling funds connected to the reordering of the OSOPADEC budget and authorising a legislative resolution without the knowledge or approval of members.

The controversy follows earlier allegations that the Speaker and his deputy were involved in the diversion of ₦44 million earmarked for the reordering of the OSOPADEC budget. While the allegations have fuelled calls for his removal, Oladiji has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Chairman of the House Committee on Information, Olatunji Fabiyi, confirmed that lawmakers had resolved that the Speaker should vacate office, saying the decision was reached after members lost confidence in his leadership.

According to Fabiyi, the lawmakers deliberately informed Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa of their decision before commencing impeachment proceedings to dispel speculation that the governor or external political interests were behind the move.

“We have resolved that Mr Speaker should go. But in the wisdom of the leadership of the House, we felt we should meet with Mr Governor,” Fabiyi said.

He explained that the Assembly leadership wanted the governor to understand that the crisis stemmed from internal legislative concerns rather than political interference.

READ ALSO:

• Trump praises Tinubu’s anti-terror efforts as Presidency cites security progress
• FG, CREDICORP Roll Out Laptop Credit Scheme for 3MTT Beneficiaries – 1,000 Devices Ready
• 2Baba, Annie Idibia Both Deny Rekindling Romance as Viral Dance Video Sparks False Reunion Hopes

“The one we did before, they were castigating us, saying somebody was sponsoring us. So, to avoid that, the leadership of the House went to Mr Governor to tell him that this one is not about him.”

Fabiyi disclosed that 21 lawmakers had already signed the impeachment notice, insisting that the Speaker no longer enjoys the support of the majority of Assembly members.

He added that the lawmakers decided to give Oladiji an opportunity to resign voluntarily before taking the matter to the floor of the House.

“We are giving him till Sunday. If he fails to resign, we will remove him,” he declared.

At the heart of the dispute is the reordering of the OSOPADEC budget. The lawmakers alleged that a resolution concerning the budget was prepared and presented in the name of members without their consent.

Fabiyi claimed lawmakers neither met to approve the resolution nor authorised anyone to present it as the collective position of the Assembly. According to him, the action amounted to a serious breach of legislative procedure and was one of the major reasons members initiated the impeachment process.

He also accused the Speaker of failing to carry lawmakers along on decisions affecting the House and the management of legislative affairs.

An anonymous lawmaker similarly alleged that adjustments made to the OSOPADEC budget were carried out without the approval of most Assembly members.

The source claimed impeachment proceedings had begun about three weeks ago but were delayed after Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa intervened and requested more time to resolve the crisis.

The lawmaker maintained that members remain determined to remove the Speaker if he refuses to resign before the deadline.

Despite mounting pressure, Speaker Olamide Oladiji has rejected all allegations against him.

He denied any involvement in financial misconduct and dismissed reports suggesting that a valid impeachment process was already underway.

The Speaker insisted he was unaware of any impeachment notice and described the accusations as unfounded.

Supporters of the Speaker have also argued that all actions taken regarding the Assembly’s finances and legislative resolutions complied with established procedures.

Under Section 92(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), a Speaker of a State House of Assembly can only be removed through a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members of the House.

With 21 lawmakers reportedly backing the impeachment in the 26-member Ondo State House of Assembly, the constitutional threshold appears to have been met if the reported signatures are verified and all procedural requirements are fulfilled.

Political observers believe the Assembly’s next plenary session could determine whether the Speaker resigns voluntarily or faces a formal impeachment vote.

The unfolding crisis is expected to shape political developments in Ondo State, as stakeholders watch to see whether last-minute interventions can prevent another leadership shake-up in the Assembly.

Ondo Speaker given Sunday deadline to resign or face impeachment

Atiku’s lobbying firm sends Tinubu’s forfeiture records to US Congress

A Washington-based lobbying firm retained by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has disclosed that it has begun distributing historical United States Department of Justice (DOJ) records relating to President Bola Tinubu’s 1993 civil forfeiture case to officials in the administration of US President Donald Trump, members of the US Congress, and senior congressional staff.

The firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., said the initiative forms part of a 12-month lobbying agreement reportedly worth $1.2 million, signed with Atiku in March 2026. According to the firm, its assignment includes promoting Atiku’s policy positions on governance, democracy and Nigeria–United States relations, while engaging key policymakers in Washington.

In a statement posted on its official X account, the lobbying firm said it had held meetings with officials in the Trump administration, members of Congress and senior congressional aides before distributing more than 60 pages of DOJ documents, court filings and supporting records relating to Tinubu’s decades-old civil forfeiture proceedings.

According to the firm, many US policymakers were previously unfamiliar with the historical case, prompting it to circulate the documents for what it described as informational and oversight purposes.

Among the materials distributed is a document titled “Background and Chronology of the 1993 U.S. Department of Justice Heroin-Proceeds Forfeiture Case and the 2023 FOIA Litigation Concerning Alleged Heroin Trafficking from Nigeria to the United States Involving Bola Ahmed Tinubu.”

READ ALSO:

• 2027: North-Central group backs Tinubu for second term, says re-election ‘done deal’
• Reps investigate xenophobic attacks, seek compensation for Nigerians in South Africa
• High graduation fees spark outrage among parents, guardians

The records relate to a 1993 civil forfeiture action filed by the US Department of Justice following an investigation into an alleged drug trafficking network that operated between Nigeria and the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Court filings referenced by the lobbying firm identify the matter as United States v. Funds in Account No. 263226700 et al., heard before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The government alleged that funds in certain bank accounts were connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering activities.

The documents mention President Tinubu alongside Adegboyega Mueez Akande and Abiodun Agbele, stating that investigators examined financial transactions carried out between 1988 and 1991.

According to the chronology, US investigators alleged that proceeds from a suspected narcotics trafficking organisation were deposited into bank accounts associated with Tinubu.

The matter, however, ended in a civil settlement, with approximately $460,000 forfeited to the US government.

Importantly, the proceedings were civil—not criminal—and President Tinubu was never convicted of any criminal offence in the United States in relation to the forfeiture case.

The lobbying firm also referenced the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation initiated in 2023 by American journalist Aaron Greenspan, who sought access to records held by several US federal agencies concerning the historical investigation.

According to the chronology, a US District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled in 2025 that some federal agencies could not rely on a blanket refusal to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records and ordered them to process portions of the FOIA requests in accordance with US law. The litigation remains ongoing.

The 1993 forfeiture case also featured prominently during Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election litigation.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi argued before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that the forfeiture proceedings raised constitutional questions about Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the election.

However, the PEPC dismissed the claims, ruling that the petitioners failed to establish that Tinubu had been convicted of any criminal offence in the United States. The court further held that the forfeiture proceeding was civil in nature and that there was insufficient evidence to prove Tinubu made false declarations to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The decision was subsequently upheld through the appellate process.

The latest lobbying effort comes as political consultations ahead of the 2027 general election continue to intensify, with both the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and opposition figures expanding their domestic and international engagements.

As of the time of filing this report, the Presidency has not issued an official response to the lobbying firm’s latest disclosure.

Political analysts say the development highlights the growing use of international lobbying by Nigerian political actors. However, they note that circulating historical court documents to US officials does not amount to a new criminal investigation, indictment or judicial ruling against President Tinubu.

Atiku’s lobbying firm sends Tinubu’s forfeiture records to US Congress