- Former vice-president says Presidency should address the forfeiture record instead of focusing on his US lobbying firm.
African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar has challenged President Bola Tinubu’s administration to explain the circumstances surrounding the forfeiture of $460,000 in the United States rather than focusing on the Washington-based lobbying firm he engaged.
Atiku’s position was contained in a statement issued on Wednesday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, in response to comments by the Presidency concerning US lobbyist Karl Von Batten-Montague-York.
According to the statement, Atiku’s $1.2 million engagement with Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., was voluntarily registered with the US Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Atiku engaged the firm in March to protect and strengthen what the contract described as his “reputational standing” in the US. A document filed with the US Department of Justice reportedly stated that one objective was to “counterbalance” the Nigerian government’s lobbying narratives in the United States.
In July, the firm said it had begun providing members of the Donald Trump administration, Congress and senior congressional staff with US Department of Justice records relating to allegations concerning Tinubu.
The development followed criticism from Sunday Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, who questioned Atiku’s decision to engage the lobbying firm and urged caution over claims about Von Batten’s access to or influence within the US administration.
Responding, Atiku accused the Presidency of focusing on the personal background of Von Batten rather than addressing questions surrounding the $460,000 forfeiture.
The available reports state that Tinubu surrendered $460,000 to US authorities in 1993 following a Chicago court case involving funds linked to a narcotics investigation. The circumstances and legal record have remained a subject of political dispute.
Atiku also alleged that the Tinubu administration had entered into a $750,000-per-month arrangement with DCI Group, which he said could total $4.5 million over six months and potentially rise 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.”
The claims by Atiku and the Presidency represent competing political positions; the allegations concerning the forfeiture and lobbying arrangements should therefore be understood in that context.