Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has responded to President Bola Tinubu’s criticism of his investment in education, insisting that he began building his educational institution years before joining the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Atiku, who is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) for the 2027 election, also referenced a 1993 United States court forfeiture case involving funds in an account linked to Tinubu, challenging the President over his own financial history.
The former vice-president made his position known in a statement issued on Saturday, November 7, by Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council.
Follow PenTalk News
Get breaking news, important updates and the latest stories directly on your phone.
The response followed Tinubu’s remarks at an APC presidential campaign rally in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, where the President questioned how Atiku established a university while serving as vice-president.
Tinubu reportedly suggested that public funds might have been used to finance the institution, challenging Atiku to explain how he acquired the resources to build it while occupying public office.
However, Atiku rejected the allegation, maintaining that his investment in education started in 1993, six years before he became vice-president in 1999.
He identified ABTI Academy as the beginning of the educational project, explaining that the institution subsequently developed into the American University of Nigeria (AUN), located in Yola, Adamawa State.
According to Atiku, his investment in education predated his involvement in the Obasanjo administration and should not be presented as a project established with public funds.
Atiku Revisits Tinubu’s 1993 US Forfeiture Case
In defending his business record, Atiku drew attention to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving funds held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
Records of the case, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, show that $460,000 in an account at First Heritage Bank in Tinubu’s name was ordered forfeited to the US government in October 1993.
The forfeiture was connected to a case in which US authorities alleged that certain funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in unlawful financial transactions.
Atiku referenced the development to contrast the timelines of their respective business histories, arguing that his educational investment had already begun before he entered public office.
He also accused Tinubu of attempting to divert public attention from the country’s economic difficulties by questioning his investment in education.
It is important to note that the US proceeding was a civil asset forfeiture case and should not be presented as a criminal conviction against Tinubu.
Atiku Criticises Tinubu’s Economic Policies, Promises Fuel Subsidy Return
Beyond the dispute over their financial histories, Atiku criticised the Tinubu administration over rising living costs, unemployment, insecurity and the country’s growing economic difficulties.
He alleged that more than 79 million Nigerians had been pushed into extreme poverty under the current administration, while accusing the government of failing to adequately acknowledge the hardship experienced by citizens.
The ADC presidential candidate also defended his proposed Affordable Life campaign, describing it as an alternative to the economic policies of the Tinubu administration.
On petrol subsidy, Atiku disagreed with the President’s position that Nigeria could not return to subsidised fuel prices.
He promised that, if elected in 2027, his administration would introduce what he described as a transparent, production-based subsidy linked to local refining.
According to him, the proposed arrangement would help reduce energy costs and make petrol and diesel more affordable for Nigerians.
Atiku further promised increased investment in social welfare programmes and reforms to ensure that financial assistance reaches economically vulnerable citizens.
He maintained that his campaign would not be intimidated by political attacks, insisting that he would contest the 2027 presidential election and defeat Tinubu.
The latest exchange adds another dimension to the growing political confrontation between the two presidential hopefuls ahead of the 2027 general election.
