Fani-Kayode is free to dislike Atiku, disagree with his policies, question his political choices and prefer President Bola Tinubu. But history should not be rewritten to serve those preferences… Atiku has sought presidential nominations repeatedly. That is true. He has changed political parties like Fani-Kayode. That is true… The Mambilla tribunal raised serious questions about a $500,000 transaction involving his former wife. That too is true… But it is equally true that Atiku has only appeared on Nigeria’s presidential-election ballot three times before 2027
Femi Fani-Kayode has written a lengthy polemic against Atiku Abubakar. Length, however, is not evidence. Nor does repetition transform opinion, disputed recollection or allegation into fact. There are several claims in his opinion article that require correction or, at the very least, proper context.
The “Seven Attempts” Argument
|
|
It is correct that Atiku has sought the presidency in different political cycles since 1993. But Fani-Kayode blurs an important distinction for the purposes of mischief.
Atiku was not a presidential candidate in a Nigerian general election in 1993, 2011 or 2015. Those were contests for party nominations. He was actually on the presidential ballot in 2007, 2019 and 2023. Having emerged as the ADC candidate for 2027, the coming election will be his fourth general election presidential candidacy, not his seventh.
|
|
|
|---|
This matters because Fani-Kayode then compares Atiku with politicians from other countries by counting their actual presidential election candidacies, while counting Atiku’s unsuccessful party primaries as presidential elections. That is not a like-for-like comparison.
Abdoulaye Wade, for example, contested Senegal’s presidential election in 1978, 1983, 1988 and 1993 before winning on his fifth attempt in 2000. He subsequently won again in 2007 and lost in 2012.
More fundamentally, Nigeria’s Constitution does not disqualify anyone because of the number of times he has unsuccessfully sought election. Section 137 bars a person who has already been elected president twice; it does not impose a limit on how many times an eligible Nigerian may contest. The decision whether persistence represents experience, ambition or something else belongs to voters, not to Fani-Kayode’s theology.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
By the way, it is not about how many times a man falls. What is defining is how many times the man gets up, dusts himself and moves on each time he falls.
Seven Political Parties? Not Quite So Simple
Fani-Kayode also claims that Atiku has belonged to seven political parties. That calculation apparently treats the People’s Front of Nigeria (PFN) as a political party. It was, in fact, one of the political associations formed during the Babangida transition. It was never registered as a political party. The military government rejected the associations and created the SDP and NRC instead. The PFN tendency subsequently moved into the SDP.
Political movement between parties is certainly a legitimate subject for scrutiny. But Fani-Kayode is an unusual person to present changing parties as evidence of peculiar moral failure. He himself joined the APC, returned to the PDP in 2014, repeatedly denounced the APC afterwards, and declared in 2019 that he would rather die than join it — only to return to the APC in September 2021.
Party switching may be criticised. But the standard should apply consistently.
What Really Happened in 2003?
Fani-Kayode presents his interpretation of the Obasanjo-Atiku conflict as though nobody disputes it. The historical record is considerably more complicated. Atiku has repeatedly stated that PDP governors approached him before the 2003 election and urged him to challenge President Obasanjo for the party ticket, but that he declined. He repeated that account publicly in 2021, saying that he relied on the party’s understanding that presidential power should remain in the South-West for eight years.
Earlier, he similarly told an interviewer that the governors wanted him to run against Obasanjo and that he refused, preferring to remain his running mate.
Other published accounts confirm that powerful PDP governors did indeed consider replacing Obasanjo and approached Atiku. Accounts differ significantly, however, on Atiku’s exact conduct and the negotiations that followed.
Fani-Kayode is entitled to his recollection. He is not entitled to convert a disputed episode in Nigerian political history into incontrovertible proof of “treachery”.
Mambilla: What the Tribunal Actually Said
Fani-Kayode also bundles Mambilla together with Siemens, Halliburton and other matters to create the impression of established corruption findings.
The recent Mambilla arbitration deserves much greater precision. The ICC tribunal examined the circumstances surrounding a $500,000 transfer made by Sunrise promoter Leno Adesanya through China Castle Investments to an account belonging to Atiku’s then-wife, Jennifer Douglas. The tribunal rejected Adesanya’s explanation because adequate contemporaneous documentation supporting the alleged foreign exchange transaction was not produced. It described the circumstances as raising significant concerns.
That part should not be concealed. But neither should the sentence that immediately limits what can legitimately be claimed about Atiku.
The tribunal expressly stated that there was no evidence in the arbitration record that Vice-President Atiku Abubakar actually exercised his official duties in a manner that fostered the award of the contract to Sunrise.
The arbitration did not impose criminal liability on Atiku, nor did it find that he corruptly awarded the Mambilla contract to Sunrise. Indeed, the former vice president did not have the final say in the award of that contract.
An investigation may examine whatever evidence exists. Investigation is not conviction, suspicion is not proof, and political commentary cannot manufacture a finding that the tribunal itself did not make.
The $1.2 Million American Engagement
Then there is Fani-Kayode’s description of a “foreign hired gun” supposedly employed for $1.2 million. There is no secret contract to uncover. The engagement between Atiku and Washington-based Von Batten-Montague-York was publicly filed with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The filing states that the firm was retained for government affairs representation and strategic advisory work, including policy positioning, briefing materials, institutional outreach and engagement with Congress and executive branch officials. The twelve-month compensation disclosed in the filing is $1.2 million.
The same filing specifically requires compliance with FARA, US ethics requirements and applicable election laws.
People may debate the wisdom or cost of employing an international strategic firm. But calling a publicly registered professional engagement evidence of some sinister conspiracy adds heat, not facts.
The Subsidy Argument Also Misrepresents Atiku’s Proposal
Fani-Kayode says Atiku wants simply to “restore the oil subsidy” and thereby destroy Nigeria’s economy. That is not the policy Atiku has publicly described.
His stated proposal is a production subsidy restricted to petroleum products refined in Nigeria, rather than a return to subsidising imported petrol. Atiku has said imported products would not qualify and that the programme would operate with a fixed spending ceiling, National Assembly approval, and independent auditing.
There are legitimate questions about its cost, implementation and compatibility with the Petroleum Industry Act. Indeed, the Presidency itself has raised those questions. That is precisely the debate Nigerians should have: fiscal cost, legality, crude pricing, domestic refining, transportation costs, and what policy can sustainably reduce pump prices.
Calling a production subsidy identical to the old import-subsidy system avoids that debate, rather than answering it.
And Then there is the Moral Sermon
Much of Fani-Kayode’s article eventually leaves politics altogether and wanders into divine injunctions, biblical vengeance and declarations about whom God will or will not permit to become president.
Those propositions are matters of personal belief, not evidence. And once political disagreement is turned into a judgment on personal character, consistency becomes important.
Fani-Kayode’s own public record has generated substantial controversy. His writings about the Igbo have attracted accusations of ethnic stereotyping and hate speech. His own published writings record the controversy. Academic research on hate-inducing political speech has also cited some of his ethnic characterisations.
His former wife, Precious Chikwendu, alleged domestic violence in an affidavit before an FCT High Court. Fani-Kayode categorically denied her allegations through his representatives. The responsible way to state that record is precisely that: an allegation was made and it was denied.
Similarly, when Fani-Kayode verbally attacked Daily Trust journalist Eyo Charles in 2020 for asking who was financing his travels, the incident was captured publicly and Fani-Kayode later apologised, saying his conduct was indefensible and that he had disappointed himself. Truth be told, the man has been disappointing himself for decades. That was why he ended up in Ghana in the first place for “drycleaning.”
None of those episodes proves or disproves anything about Atiku Abubakar. That is exactly the point. Political arguments should rise or fall on evidence rather than character assassination.
Let the Facts Compete
Fani-Kayode is free to dislike Atiku, disagree with his policies, question his political choices and prefer President Bola Tinubu. But history should not be rewritten to serve those preferences.
Atiku has sought presidential nominations repeatedly. That is true. He has changed political parties like Fani-Kayode. That is true.
The Mambilla tribunal raised serious questions about a $500,000 transaction involving his former wife. That too is true.
But it is equally true that Atiku has only appeared on Nigeria’s presidential-election ballot three times before 2027; that the tribunal expressly said there was no evidence before it that he used his official duties to facilitate the Sunrise contract; that his American strategic engagement is publicly registered under FARA; and that his present petroleum proposal is structured as support for domestic production rather than a resurrection of the old import-subsidy architecture.
Those distinctions matter. In public discourse, opinion is free. But opinion should never be presented as a substitute for fact.
Paul Ibe is media adviser to Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress and Vice President Nigeria, 1999-2007.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
