Insults can’t replace transparency over Tinubu records, Atiku tells presidency

Former Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar has criticized the Presidency for allegedly resorting to personal attacks rather than providing transparency regarding President Bola Tinubu's records. Abubakar stated that "insults cannot replace transparency" and that Nigerians are seeking factual clarifications, not political invective. He argued that when governments abandon facts for insults, it signals a lack of convincing answers.

“

When governments abandon facts for insults and substitute evidence with abuse, they unwittingly admit that they have run out of convincing answers. Nigerians expected clarification. What they received instead was a barrage of name-calling and political invective.

Abubakar's response comes after the Presidency accused him of undermining Nigeria's sovereignty. This accusation followed reports that his lobbying group in the United States had submitted petitions to Donald Trump and the U.S. State Department concerning a 1993 civil forfeiture case involving Tinubu. The former vice president countered that asking questions based on publicly available records should not be misconstrued as an attack on Nigeria's sovereignty.

“

No one has reported Nigeria to anyone. Nigeria is not on trial. The issue concerns questions arising from publicly available records relating to the occupant of the nation’s highest office.

He emphasized that the issue pertains to questions arising from public records related to the highest office in the land, records not created by the opposition. Abubakar criticized the Presidency for reviving old allegations against him instead of directly addressing the issues raised. He asserted that personal attacks do not erase public records or substitute for transparency, urging the Presidency to present facts if it believes the public record has been misunderstood.

“

Accountability is not foreign interference; it is a democratic obligation.

Furthermore, Abubakar criticized the administration's perceived inconsistency in its approach to international engagement, noting that it celebrates international validation when convenient but condemns scrutiny when uncomfortable. He stressed that accountability is a democratic obligation, not foreign interference. Abubakar concluded by stating that while elections confer political authority, they do not extinguish the public's right to ask questions or exempt officials from accounting to the people.

“

Elections confer political authority, but they do not extinguish the public's right to ask questions. A democratic mandate is not a substitute for transparency, nor does it exempt any public official from the obligation to account to the people.