ATIKU FIRES BACK AT PRESIDENCY, INVOKES CHINA OVER TINUBU'S U.S. FORFEITURE CASE
By
Joseph Etsevi
Former Vice
President, Atiku Abubakar has challenged the Presidency to apply the same
standards it invoked in comparing Nigeria's anti-corruption efforts with
China's to issues surrounding President Bola Tinubu's past forfeiture case in
the United States.
Reacting to
comments from the Presidency, Atiku argued that rather than presenting the
comparison with China as a political advantage, the government should consider
how Chinese authorities would respond to the circumstances surrounding the
$460,000 forfeited to the United States Government in a civil forfeiture case
linked to allegations of narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
According to
Atiku, China's reputation for uncompromising enforcement of drug-related
offences suggests that such a forfeiture would be regarded not as the
conclusion of a matter, but as the beginning of a thorough criminal
investigation.
Expanding
his criticism beyond the forfeiture issue, the former Vice President said the
same standard of accountability would also draw attention to other
controversies surrounding the current administration. He cited what he
described as a national budget allegedly riddled with padding and questionable
appropriations, unresolved allegations involving a senior presidential aide
over the alleged creation of a fake government agency, and the growing
disconnect between the Tinubu's administration "Renewed Hope" agenda
and the economic struggles many Nigerians say they continue to experience.
Atiku also
faulted the Presidency's communication strategy, arguing that the latest
remarks reflected poorly on its handling of public messaging. He maintained
that the responsibility of a Presidential Media Adviser is to protect the
President from avoidable political controversies rather than deepen them.
He further
dismissed the Presidency's earlier reliance on a response from the United
States Government to diplomatic correspondence concerning the forfeiture
matter, describing it as a routine exchange between two sovereign states rather
than a judicial pronouncement or legal exoneration.
The exchange
marks the latest chapter in the ongoing war of words between the Presidency and
the former Vice President, as both sides continue to clash over issues of
accountability, governance, and public perception.

Comments
Post a Comment