0
The former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, has again taken the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, to the cleaners, describing him as a man armed with outrage but bereft of evidence; rich in allegations but poor in facts.
Dismissing his latest allegations, Atiku described them as an unfortunate cocktail of bitterness, conjecture, and political revisionism masquerading as public interest.
Atiku, in a statement by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, said Nigerians who watched Mr. Lawal’s recent television interview were confronted with a curious spectacle, adding that what was presented as a serious political intervention ultimately collapsed into an extended exercise in speculation and unsubstantiated claims.
He said, “Mr. Lawal spent nearly an hour making grave accusations about the conduct of the ADC presidential primary. Yet he failed to produce a single piece of verifiable evidence. No document. No petition. No result sheet. No witness statement. No recording. Nothing. For a man who repeatedly insisted that proof was ‘everywhere,’ his performance was a masterclass in making extraordinary allegations without meeting the elementary obligation of substantiating them.
“He arrived with accusations. He left with accusations. In between, the evidence never arrived.
“Ordinarily, one would expect a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation and former National Vice Chairman of a political party to understand the elementary distinction between evidence and suspicion. Instead, Nigerians were treated to stories about unnamed callers, unnamed officials, unnamed witnesses, and unnamed conspirators. By the time the interview ended, the only thing in abundance was speculation.”
Atiku further said that “one would have expected a higher regard for evidence from a man who once vigorously resisted being judged by mere allegations. Having demanded fairness for himself, Mr. Lawal should understand that accusations without proof are nothing more than prejudice dressed up as argument.
“What the interview ultimately revealed was not a whistleblower exposing wrongdoing but a disappointed political actor struggling to come to terms with the failure of his preferred candidate. By his own admission, Mr. Lawal openly aligned himself with another aspirant long before the conclusion of the process.
“He campaigned for that candidate, promoted that candidate, and publicly believed that candidate should emerge victorious. Having failed in that objective, he now seeks to dress personal disappointment in the borrowed robes of moral outrage.
“Perhaps the most laughable contradiction in Mr. Lawal’s performance was his attempt to portray Atiku Abubakar as both politically irrelevant and politically omnipotent at the same time. According to his own account, Atiku was inactive, unpopular, and absent from the field. Yet Nigerians are simultaneously expected to believe that this same supposedly dormant politician somehow orchestrated a nationwide conspiracy across 8,809 wards.
“What makes this theory particularly absurd is that it requires Nigerians to believe that thousands of ADC members across the federation abandoned their own judgment and surrendered their votes to an invisible conspiracy directed by a man whom Mr. Lawal simultaneously describes as politically inactive. Such arguments are not merely implausible; they are insulting to the intelligence of party members whose democratic choices he now seeks to invalidate simply because they did not favour his preferred candidate.”
Atiku said that one is left to wonder whether Mr. Lawal was describing a presidential aspirant or a mythical political deity endowed with powers of omnipresence, adding that such theories belong not in serious political discourse but in the realm of fantasy.
Atiku also stated that “more revealing, however, was Mr. Lawal’s astonishing confession on national television that if he ever needed money, all he had to do was call President Tinubu and the money would reach him before he got home. Nigerians heard him. Nigerians understood him. And Nigerians can draw their own conclusions from the implications of such a remarkable declaration.
“Increasingly, Mr. Lawal cuts the figure of a political mercenary, eagerly retailing narratives carefully designed to discredit Atiku Abubakar before Christian communities in the Middle Belt and other constituencies where the former Vice President continues to enjoy considerable goodwill. His latest crusade, therefore, raises legitimate questions about motive, especially when viewed against his own public declarations.
“The tragedy of Mr. Lawal’s intervention is that he appears to have become so consumed by bitterness that he no longer recognises the difference between evidence and speculation. Every outcome he dislikes is rigging. Every defeat is a conspiracy. Every disagreement becomes proof of manipulation. This is not the language of reason. It is the language of grievance.
“More unfortunate was his descent into reckless personal abuse. Unable to defend his allegations with facts, he resorted to insults. Yet history teaches us that insults are often the last refuge of those who have run out of arguments.
“Perhaps the most revealing moment of the entire interview was Mr. Lawal’s astonishing declaration that Atiku Abubakar has ‘absolutely nothing.’ Such a statement could only have come from a man blinded by animosity. Nigerians know Atiku Abubakar’s record. They know his role in the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector, his contributions to economic reforms, private sector development, education, and national growth. They know that political relevance sustained across three decades and multiple political generations cannot be built on ‘nothing.’
“Indeed, the most devastating rebuttal to Babachir Lawal’s allegations came not from Atiku Abubakar, the ADC, or any member of the public. It came from Babachir Lawal himself. Given every opportunity to substantiate his claims, he left the studio exactly as he entered it — with accusations but without proof, with outrage but without evidence, and with bitterness but without credibility. By the end, Nigerians were left not with a scandal, but with a spectacle.
“Mr. Lawal is entitled to his opinions. He is entitled to his preferences. He is even entitled to his disappointments. What he is not entitled to are his own facts.
“As far as we are concerned, this is the final response to Mr. Lawal’s increasingly desperate attempts to remain politically relevant through sensationalism and character assassination. Nigerians have heard him. Nigerians have seen him. And Nigerians have judged for themselves.
“The facts remain unchanged. The truth remains intact. And no amount of bitterness can alter either.”
