The African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Campaign Council has challenged the All Progressives Congress (APC) to produce any court judgment convicting its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, of corruption.

The challenge followed recent comments by APC National Publicity Secretary, Felix Morka, who questioned Atiku’s record and warned Nigerians against entrusting the country’s treasury to the former vice-president ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

Responding on behalf of the ADC campaign, Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communications, accused the APC spokesperson of presenting a collection of investigations, allegations and disputed financial transactions as though they amounted to established criminal convictions.

Morka had referenced controversies surrounding the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, the Siemens bribery investigation, the case involving former United States Congressman William Jefferson, the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) controversy and a 2010 report by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Shaibu said the APC should identify the court that convicted Atiku and publish the judgment if it maintains that the former vice-president has been convicted of corruption.

“If he claims there is a conviction, let him identify the court and publish the judgment.”

The ADC spokesperson argued that political criticism should not erase the distinction between an allegation, an investigative report, an arbitral finding and a criminal judgment.

Mambilla Payment at Centre of Dispute

The most recent point of contention concerns a $500,000 payment made by Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited, to Jennifer Douglas, Atiku’s then-wife, in January 2003.

The payment was examined during arbitration proceedings before an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal in Paris concerning the long-running dispute over the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.

The ICC tribunal ultimately rejected Sunrise Power’s claims against Nigeria. However, its final award also examined the circumstances surrounding the $500,000 transfer and raised concerns about the explanation given for the transaction.

According to the tribunal record, Adesanya acknowledged transferring the money through China Castle Investments Limited. He described it as a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku.

The tribunal found that Adesanya had not provided documentary evidence supporting that explanation, including records showing the underlying naira payment, exchange rate, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence or other documentation establishing the commercial purpose of the transaction.

The tribunal also noted the timing of the payment: it was made on January 30, 2003, less than four months before Sunrise was purportedly awarded a build-operate-transfer contract relating to the Mambilla project.

It said it could not accept Adesanya’s explanation as a bona fide foreign-exchange transaction and that the circumstances created significant concerns.

However, the tribunal also stated that there was no evidence in the arbitration record that Atiku actually exercised his duties as a government official in a manner that fostered the award of the contract to Sunrise. It said it could not exclude a possible connection between the payment and Atiku’s governmental role in the Mambilla project, but it did not make a definitive finding that Atiku received a bribe or corruptly influenced the contract.

That distinction has become central to the current political dispute.

Shaibu argued that the tribunal’s concerns cannot properly be converted into a criminal conviction against Atiku.

“Adesanya’s explanation about the said payment may have called for further probe by the tribunal, but it does not give Morka permission to write a corruption verdict the tribunal never delivered,” he said.

What the U.S. Senate Report Said

Shaibu also disputed the APC’s interpretation of a 2010 report by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

The Senate report examined the movement of what it described as suspect funds into the United States through accounts associated with Jennifer Douglas, who was Atiku’s then-wife.

The report said Douglas helped move more than $40 million into the United States between 2000 and 2008, including funds that the report connected to offshore companies and alleged Siemens bribe payments. It also discussed allegations concerning Atiku and the Petroleum Technology Development Fund.

The Senate committee’s report is an investigative document, not a criminal judgment against Atiku.

The committee described its work as a case study involving foreign corruption and financial flows, while discussing allegations and suspicious transactions associated with Douglas and other individuals.

Its findings therefore need to be distinguished from a criminal conviction by a court.

Siemens Controversy

The Siemens issue also forms part of the political argument.

The U.S. Senate report cited a 2008 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission complaint alleging that Siemens made millions of dollars in bribe payments as part of a scheme involving Nigerian officials. The report said $2.8 million was transferred to a U.S. bank account belonging to Douglas.

The existence of the Siemens bribery case is documented. What remains politically contested is how responsibility for those transactions should be attributed to Atiku personally.

That distinction is important because evidence concerning money entering an account belonging to a person’s spouse does not, by itself, establish that the person personally received a bribe or was criminally convicted.

William Jefferson Case

The William Jefferson case presents another distinction.

Jefferson, a former U.S. congressman, was prosecuted in the United States on bribery, racketeering, money-laundering and related charges. U.S. Justice Department records document the prosecution and subsequent proceedings against Jefferson.

The case involved business dealings in Nigeria and other African countries and allegations concerning Nigerian officials.

However, the fact that Atiku’s name appeared in discussions surrounding the case is not equivalent to a criminal conviction of Atiku.

The ADC’s argument is that references to the Jefferson case must therefore be presented with the relevant legal distinctions rather than as proof that Atiku himself was convicted.

PTDF Controversy Also Predates the Current Campaign

Morka also cited controversies involving the Petroleum Technology Development Fund, an issue that dates back to the political disputes surrounding the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Atiku’s tenure as vice-president.

A PTDF publication itself acknowledged that the fund had been subjected to an EFCC and Senate probe and that the controversy shaped public perceptions of its management.

Again, the existence of a parliamentary or investigative controversy should not automatically be described as a criminal conviction.

This distinction is particularly relevant in an election campaign, where political parties routinely revisit unresolved or contested issues from the records of opponents.

ADC Also Challenges APC’s Tinubu Reserves Claim

Shaibu also disputed another claim attributed to Morka concerning President Bola Tinubu’s handling of Nigeria’s foreign reserves.

He questioned an APC comparison suggesting that Tinubu inherited reserves of about $3 billion and subsequently raised them above $54 billion.

The Central Bank of Nigeria’s May 2023 Economic Report, however, recorded Nigeria’s external reserves at $34.39 billion at the end of May 2023, shortly before the change of administration.

That figure provides an important factual reference point when assessing competing political claims about the reserves inherited by the Tinubu administration.

It does not, by itself, settle the broader question of how Nigeria’s reserves subsequently changed, since reserve levels fluctuate because of foreign-exchange inflows, obligations, valuation changes, interventions and other factors.

Shaibu nevertheless accused the APC of selectively presenting the reserve figures to strengthen its political argument.

The Fuel Subsidy Argument Returns

The ADC campaign council also defended Atiku’s proposal for a targeted petroleum subsidy.

Atiku has proposed a system under which subsidy support would apply to petroleum products refined in Nigeria and sold to Nigerian consumers, rather than providing a blanket subsidy for imported petroleum products.

The proposal has become part of the wider 2027 debate over how Nigeria should balance petrol affordability, domestic refining, government revenue and fiscal sustainability.

The issue is politically significant because the Tinubu administration removed the petrol subsidy in 2023, while Atiku has subsequently argued for a more targeted mechanism.

The two positions therefore represent different approaches to managing the cost of petroleum products and the fiscal consequences of government intervention.

What the Dispute Establishes and What It Does Not

The latest exchange illustrates how corruption allegations are likely to feature prominently in the 2027 presidential campaign.

The APC has pointed to historical investigations, financial transactions and controversies involving Atiku and people associated with him as grounds for questioning his suitability for the presidency.

The ADC, in turn, argues that those matters should not be presented as criminal convictions where courts or tribunals did not make such findings.

The recently released ICC award makes the distinction particularly important.

The tribunal did examine the $500,000 payment, rejected the explanation offered for it and described circumstances surrounding the transaction as raising serious concerns.

At the same time, the tribunal did not find that Atiku personally used his public office to secure the Mambilla contract for Sunrise, nor did it issue a criminal conviction against him.

Similarly, the U.S. Senate report contains serious investigative findings and allegations concerning financial transactions, while the William Jefferson case resulted in proceedings against Jefferson, not a criminal conviction of Atiku.

For voters, the distinction matters: an allegation, an investigative report, an arbitral finding and a criminal conviction are different categories of evidence and legal determination.

The latest APC-ADC exchange is therefore less about whether the controversies exist, they are documented in various records and more about how those records should be interpreted and presented during the 2027 campaign.