By Comrade Samson Alabi
Secretary, Anti-Atiku Narrative Counter Committee | The Narrative Force
The news that Hon. Ehiozuwa Agbonayinma, through his counsel, has issued a 14-day ultimatum to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to “reopen and prosecute” a matter involving former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, based substantially on the EFCC’s September 2006 report, would be laughable if it were not another familiar script in Nigerian politics. Coming at a time when Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is the Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, for the 2027 elections, the timing and circumstances surrounding this petition naturally deserve scrutiny.
Let us make one thing absolutely clear from the outset: Atiku Abubakar has nothing to fear from the truth, nothing to fear from investigation, and nothing to fear from the law. If the EFCC believes there is a legitimate basis to review any matter concerning him, it should do so professionally, independently and in accordance with the law. If there is credible evidence capable of sustaining a prosecution, let the evidence be tested and let the law take its course. Atiku does not need political protection from the EFCC, nor does he need anyone to shield him from legitimate scrutiny. What he deserves, like every other Nigerian, is an impartial process governed by evidence and the law.
As loyalists and followers who believe in due process, I am compelled to set the record straight. The foundation of the present petition is the EFCC’s September 2006 report and the allegations arising from matters it investigated at the time. The report is not a secret document, and the controversy surrounding the matters it examined is not being raised for the first time. Indeed, the present petition itself relies on that old report and asks the EFCC to reactivate it alongside a 2010 United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report.
But this is where political rhetoric must give way to legal precision. An investigative report, even where it contains allegations or conclusions, is not by itself a criminal conviction. An allegation is not a conviction. An investigative finding is not the same thing as a judicial determination of guilt. Ultimately, if the state seeks to criminally prosecute a person, the case must still be established through the appropriate legal process.
That distinction is fundamental, particularly when political actors attempt to present investigative materials to the public as though they constitute a final judicial verdict.
The present petition seeks to use the 2006 EFCC report, together with the 2010 United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, as the basis for renewed prosecution. That does not automatically establish criminal liability against Atiku Abubakar. It means that documents and allegations are being presented to an agency for consideration. The EFCC must independently determine what those materials establish under Nigerian law and whether they are sufficient to justify any further action.
If there is genuinely new and credible evidence, let it be produced. If there are facts previously unavailable to investigators, let them be examined. If the law establishes that a prosecutable offence occurred and that the available evidence can sustain a charge, then let the appropriate legal process commence. Atiku will face it. But nobody should confuse a petition with a conviction.
The same principle applies to the 2010 United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report. That report is being presented today as though its existence, standing alone, settled the question of criminal liability against Atiku Abubakar. It did not. Whatever materials, allegations, transactions or conclusions the report contained, it was a congressional investigative document, not a criminal indictment issued against Atiku by a foreign court and not a judicial determination of his guilt. More importantly, the report itself did not determine that Atiku Abubakar was criminally guilty under Nigerian law.
There is another important fact that should not be lost in the political noise: the report did not result in Atiku Abubakar being criminally prosecuted, convicted or found guilty by a court in the United States or, on the basis of that report, by any court elsewhere. Neither should a congressional investigative report be casually described as though a foreign security or law-enforcement agency had tried and convicted Atiku. That is simply not what the report was. If anyone claims otherwise, the burden is on them to identify the specific foreign criminal charge, the court that tried the case, the judgment that found him guilty and the legal basis upon which such a claim rests.
A foreign legislative investigation may be considered by Nigerian authorities where the law permits and where its contents are relevant, but its existence does not automatically establish that a Nigerian criminal offence was committed, nor does it dispense with the requirements of investigation, admissibility, proof and due process under Nigerian law. If the report is being relied upon today as the basis for renewed action, then the relevant Nigerian authorities must independently examine the underlying facts and determine whether those facts disclose an offence prosecutable under Nigerian law and whether the available evidence is sufficient to sustain such a case before a competent Nigerian court.
This is why the attempt to turn the mere existence of the report into a settled criminal verdict against Atiku is fundamentally misleading. The report can be cited, examined and scrutinised; what it cannot do is perform the constitutional and legal functions of a Nigerian investigator, prosecutor and court. Those functions remain separate. Until a competent court determines otherwise, an investigative report remains an investigative report, not a conviction.
The burden, therefore, is evidence, not headlines. The burden is due process, not political declarations. And the burden is law, not an ultimatum.
The most important issue in this matter is consequently not whether the allegations are old. An old matter can legitimately be revisited where there is a proper legal basis, fresh evidence or another lawful reason for renewed investigation. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar understands that principle himself. He has pursued lawful legal and institutional avenues concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over matters dating back to 1993, including the U.S. forfeiture matter that featured in the legal challenges surrounding the 2023 presidential election and has continued to receive attention. Atiku-linked efforts concerning records relating to that matter were also reported in 2026.
Therefore, nobody should make the simplistic argument that an allegation becomes irrelevant merely because it is old. That would be an intellectually weak defence, and that is not our position.
Our position is much stronger: if an old matter contains evidence of a prosecutable offence, let the law deal with it. If it does not, no amount of political theatre can manufacture a conviction.
Atiku has never claimed to be above the law. He has used the courts and other lawful institutions when he believed that the law, democracy or his rights required judicial intervention. That is his constitutional right. Likewise, anyone who believes there is a legitimate case against Atiku is entitled to approach the appropriate authorities. But exercising that right does not make the allegation proven, does not make the petitioner the judge of the matter, and does not oblige the EFCC to reach a predetermined conclusion.
The 14-day ultimatum is therefore not something Atiku needs to fear. Let the EFCC receive the petition. Let it examine whatever evidence has been presented. Let it make its determination independently. If there is a genuine case, let it be prosecuted. If there is evidence, let it be tested. If there is no prosecutable case, let that fact speak for itself.
There is no panic in that position. There is no fear in that position. There is simply confidence in the law.
There is also nothing inherently wrong with demanding institutional action or setting a political deadline. Atiku himself has used lawful political pressure when demanding answers from the present administration. The problem begins when a political deadline is presented as though it dictates the outcome of an investigation or prosecution. An anti-corruption agency cannot be expected to manufacture a particular prosecutorial conclusion simply because a politician has imposed a 14-day countdown.
The EFCC is not a political party, it is not a campaign organisation, and it is not a media court. Its responsibility is to investigate and prosecute financial crimes according to law and evidence, not according to political timetables.
If the petitioner believes the EFCC has failed to perform a statutory responsibility, there are established legal mechanisms through which that claim can be tested. The appropriate forum for determining legal rights and obligations remains the legal process, not a press conference, social-media campaign or political countdown.
Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution expresses the constitutional commitment of the Nigerian state to abolishing corrupt practices and the abuse of power. That commitment is not in dispute. But the fight against corruption must itself be conducted within the framework of the Constitution and applicable law. Nobody should be prosecuted because a politician demands it, just as nobody should be protected because a politician demands it either. Evidence and law must determine what happens next.
That is the standard that should apply to Atiku. It is also the standard that should apply to Tinubu. It is the standard that should apply to every Nigerian.
Nigeria is facing serious challenges: inflation, insecurity, unemployment, declining purchasing power and a middle class under severe pressure. What Nigerians need from political actors is not the recycling of allegations as election-season entertainment. They need ideas, policies and solutions. They need jobs, functioning industries, improved agriculture, better healthcare, security, efficient public institutions and an economy that gives ordinary Nigerians a realistic opportunity to prosper.
The 2027 election should therefore be a contest of records, competence, policies and vision, not a contest over who can produce the most politically convenient allegation against an opponent.
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar has served Nigeria at the highest levels and continues to advocate restructuring, economic reform, devolution of powers and national unity. His candidacy should be scrutinised. His record should be debated. His policies should be challenged. And Nigerians should ultimately decide his political fate at the ballot box.
That is democracy.
What Nigerians should not be asked to accept is the transformation of allegations into convictions before a competent court has determined anything. If genuinely new evidence exists, let the appropriate authorities examine it. If a prosecutable offence is established, let the law take its course. If the evidence does not establish a prosecutable case, then the matter should not be converted into a permanent political weapon.
Atiku, like every other Nigerian, is subject to the law. But he is also entitled to the protections of the law.
The question is therefore not whether Atiku is above the law. He is not.
The question is whether the law will be applied equally, whether evidence will determine prosecution, whether law-enforcement institutions will remain independent of political pressure, and whether Nigerians will be allowed to judge political candidates on their records, policies, competence and vision rather than recycled allegations presented with election-season theatrics.
If this is genuinely about fighting corruption, then let the evidence speak. If there is a case, prosecute it. If there is no case, do not manufacture one in the court of public opinion. But no political deadline can turn an allegation into a conviction. No press conference can substitute for a trial. And no campaign slogan can replace evidence.
That is the difference between a genuine anti-corruption process and a political campaign disguised as one.
Nigeria deserves better. Justice deserves better. And the Nigerian people deserve better. They deserve to vote based on issues, records, competence and credible policy alternatives, not manufactured scandals and recycled political scripts.
The Atiku/ADC movement remains focused. We are not afraid of investigation. We are not afraid of scrutiny. We are not afraid of the law. We are only opposed to the weaponisation of institutions for political purposes.
Let the EFCC do its job. Let the evidence speak. Let the law prevail. And let Nigerians decide in 2027.
We will not be intimidated. We will not be distracted. And we will not be derailed.
By Comrade Samson Alabi
Secretary, Anti-Atiku Narrative Counter Committee | The Narrative Force
