Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, has challenged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to address what he described as substantive questions arising from documented American records, rather than relying on personal attacks and political distractions.
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 American lobbyist Karl Von Batten.
Shaibu accused the Presidency of attempting to divert attention from records involving Von Batten by focusing on his marriage, ancestry, names and business history.
He said, “At this rate, perhaps the next response from the Presidency will tell Nigerians the colour of Karl Von Batten’s socks and what he eats for breakfast. But after all the mockery, genealogy and amateur detective work, the documents will still be there.”
According to Shaibu, Atiku’s one-point-two-million-dollar engagement with Von Batten-Montague-York was voluntarily registered with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.
He said the filing clearly stated the nature of the engagement, its duration and compensation.
Shaibu argued that because the engagement was publicly disclosed, President Tinubu should focus on answering the questions arising from the American records.
He said, “You cannot expose what was publicly disclosed. So, President Tinubu should stop chasing the messenger and answer the questions raised by the records.”
The former vice president’s aide also questioned why Tinubu’s name was connected to a historical United States federal narcotics and money-laundering investigation and why a US District Court entered a decree forfeiting 460-thousand dollars held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
“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.
He, however, stressed that Atiku’s camp was not describing the civil forfeiture as 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.
Shaibu also accused the Tinubu administration of hypocrisy over its criticism of Atiku’s lobbying expenditure.
He claimed that the federal government had entered into an arrangement with DCI Group worth 750-thousand dollars monthly, amounting to four-point-five million dollars for the first six months, with provisions capable of taking the engagement to nine million dollars.
According to him, the arrangement was conducted through Aster Legal in connection with a senior federal security institution.
Shaibu said the issue was not whether politicians or governments were entitled to engage lobbyists, but what he described as the hypocrisy of criticising Atiku for lobbying while allegedly undertaking a more expensive arrangement.
“When you spend millions lobbying Washington, it is diplomacy,” he said.
“When Atiku spends $1.2 million over an entire year, it becomes desperation.
“What magnificent hypocrisy.
“If Atiku’s $1.2 million is evidence of desperation, what exactly should Nigerians call your own arrangement capable of reaching $9 million? National distress?”
