By Tracy Moses

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has criticised the Presidency’s decision to reference China’s legal system in its defence of President Bola Tinubu, arguing that the comparison has only revived public scrutiny over allegations previously raised against the President.

Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in the 2027 election, described the move as a “monumental own goal,” insisting that invoking China — a country known for its strict criminal justice system and severe penalties for serious drug-related offences — had created more questions than answers for the administration.

The former Vice President’s reaction followed comments by presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, who accused Atiku of corruption and argued that he would have faced severe punishment under China’s legal system.

In a statement issued on Saturday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said the Presidency’s attempt to discredit him by using China as a reference point had inadvertently drawn attention to issues surrounding President Tinubu’s past controversies.

“It takes a peculiar kind of unintelligence for a spokesman to set out to drag an opponent before a hypothetical Chinese court, only to end up dragging his own principal into the dock.

“Perhaps, the spokesman did not realise that the maximum penalty under Chinese law for the most serious drug trafficking offences is death. Having chosen China as his benchmark, he unwittingly invited Nigerians to examine the very standard he thought would embarrass Atiku Abubakar,” the statement read.

Atiku maintained that he had never been convicted or indicted for corruption, narcotics offences or any criminal offence in Nigeria or abroad.

“The facts are neither complicated nor disputable. Atiku Abubakar has never been indicted or convicted by any court in Nigeria or anywhere else in the world for corruption, narcotics offences or, indeed, any criminal offence whatsoever. That is an incontrovertible matter of public record,” Shaibu stated.

The former Vice President argued that if China’s legal standards were being presented as a benchmark for accountability, then similar standards should apply when examining unresolved controversies involving public officials.

He specifically referenced the forfeiture of $460,000 to the United States Government in a civil proceeding involving funds allegedly linked to narcotics trafficking and money laundering, arguing that such matters would attract deeper scrutiny under China’s system.

“China is renowned for its uncompromising approach to narcotics-related offences and public accountability. It is not a jurisdiction where the forfeiture of suspicious proceeds ordinarily marks the end of official scrutiny. More often than not, that is where scrutiny begins,” the statement added.

Beyond the legal controversy, Atiku accused the Tinubu administration of falling short of the accountability standards it sought to associate with China.

He alleged that issues surrounding budget implementation, alleged abuse of office and the controversy involving the purported Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) would attract serious scrutiny in a country like China.

“Not in China would a president sign into law a national budget immersed in scandals, padding and duplicitous appropriations. Not in China would a President look the other way while a senior presidential aide faces grave allegations of creating a fake government agency. Not in China would a government campaign on Renewed Hope only to deliver renewed hardship to its citizens,” he stated.

The ADC presidential candidate also faulted the Presidency’s interpretation of a recent response from United States authorities to Nigeria’s diplomatic inquiry, which the administration had cited as evidence that there were no pending criminal proceedings against President Tinubu.

Atiku argued that diplomatic correspondence between governments should not be portrayed as a judicial clearance.

“The Presidency should also stop brandishing the United States Government’s reply to its diplomatic correspondence as though it were a judicial acquittal. Diplomatic correspondence between sovereign governments is routine. It is neither a judgment of a court, nor a declaration of innocence, nor an instrument for rewriting history,” he said.

He urged the Federal Government to focus on addressing economic hardship, insecurity and institutional challenges rather than engaging in political exchanges.

“The Tinubu administration would do better to devote its dwindling political capital to confronting the economic hardship, rising hunger, insecurity and institutional decline afflicting Nigerians instead of manufacturing diversions that collapse at the slightest contact with the facts,” he added.

Presidency’s Allegations Against Atiku

The controversy followed a post by Onanuga on his verified X account on Friday, where he accused Atiku of corruption and criticised his role in Nigeria’s privatisation programme during his tenure as Vice President.

Onanuga alleged that the privatisation exercise under Atiku’s supervision resulted in the sale of national assets to cronies and contributed to job losses and unpaid entitlements.

“Nigerians have not forgotten the legacy of the privatisation programme under Atiku’s watch as vice president. He presided over an egregious privatisation heist, selling national assets to cronies for peanuts and causing thousands of job losses and unpaid salaries and pensions that President Tinubu is clearing today,” Onanuga wrote.

He further argued that Atiku lacked the moral standing to seek Nigerians’ votes.

“A man with such a dismal record as a public servant certainly has no business asking for our votes. Indeed, if Atiku Abubakar were a Chinese, he would be rotting away in jail for his crimes against the Nigerian people,” he added.

The exchange represents the latest political confrontation between the Presidency and opposition figures as parties intensify preparations and positioning ahead of the 2027 general election, with issues of accountability, governance, economic performance and personal integrity expected to dominate political debates.