Answer $460k Question, Stop Attacking My Lobbyist – Atiku to Presidency
Answer $460k Question, Stop Attacking My Lobbyist – Atiku to Presidency
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has fired back at the Presidency, demanding that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu explain the circumstances surrounding his $460,000 forfeiture to the United States government in 1993, rather than focusing on the lobbyist representing Atiku’s interests in Washington.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), made the demand through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, in response to comments by Sunday Dare, the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Public Communications. Dare had criticised Atiku’s decision to engage Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., a Washington-based lobbying firm, and cautioned against claims that the firm’s managing partner, Karl Von Batten, had direct access to US President Donald Trump or could influence ongoing court proceedings.
But Shaibu accused the Presidency of diverting attention from substantive issues raised by American judicial records. “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.
The records in question date back to October 4, 1993, when a Chicago District Court ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account bearing Tinubu’s name at First Heritage Bank. The court found that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in financial transactions violating US laws. Tinubu surrendered the money to the US government following proceedings before the court.
Shaibu acknowledged that civil forfeiture does not amount to a criminal conviction. “Let us also be precise. A civil forfeiture is not a criminal conviction, and we have never said otherwise. But President Tinubu cannot abuse, mock or distract a court record out of existence,” he said.
Atiku hired Von Batten-Montague-York in March under a $1.2 million contract aimed at protecting and strengthening his reputational standing in the United States. According to documents filed with the US Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), one objective was to “counterbalance” the Nigerian government’s lobbying narratives in the US. In July, the firm disclosed that it had begun providing members of the Trump administration, Congress, and senior congressional staff with DOJ records relating to drug trafficking allegations against Tinubu.
Shaibu also accused the Tinubu administration of hypocrisy, alleging that the Federal Government had separately engaged DCI Group in a deal worth $750,000 monthly—amounting to $4.5 million over six months, with provisions that could increase the contract to $9 million. “If Atiku’s $1.2 million is evidence of desperation, what exactly should Nigerians call your own arrangement capable of reaching $9 million?” he asked.
“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 declared.
He further argued that the debate should focus on the hardship facing Nigerians—rising food and transportation costs, electricity bills, insecurity, and declining purchasing power—rather than political exchanges. “Washington does not belong to the Nigerian Presidency,” Shaibu added, maintaining that both Tinubu and Atiku are entitled to engage lobbyists.
ANN Politics
