Agbonayinma Explains Why He Wants EFCC to Reopen Atiku’s Old Financial Crime Case

Former Edo State lawmaker Ehiozuwa Agbonayinma has explained why he is pressing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to revisit long-standing financial crime allegations involving former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.

Agbonayinma, who represented Egor/Ikpoba-Okha Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, said his demand was not based on a new allegation against Atiku but on an old investigation and reports that, in his view, should not have remained unresolved.

The former lawmaker made the clarification during an interview with Arise Television, amid renewed political attention surrounding the allegations and his recent 14-day ultimatum to the EFCC.

Why the old case has resurfaced

The controversy dates back to Atiku’s time as vice-president under former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

Agbonayinma maintains that allegations concerning the movement of funds through companies and financial institutions linked to Atiku had previously been investigated. He argued that the fact that the allegations are old should not prevent the relevant authorities from determining whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant further action.

His position is that the central question should not be why the matter is being raised in 2026, but why an investigation conducted years ago did not ultimately result in a clear judicial conclusion.

According to him, the EFCC already had material from its earlier investigation and should explain what happened to the findings.

Agbonayinma’s argument over presidential immunity

One of the main explanations offered by Agbonayinma concerns Atiku’s position as vice-president at the time.

He argued that Atiku could not be prosecuted while serving as vice-president because of the constitutional immunity attached to the office.

That distinction is important. An allegation or investigation is not the same thing as a criminal conviction, and the existence of an investigative report does not by itself establish that a person committed an offence.

Agbonayinma himself acknowledged this principle, stressing that Atiku remains innocent unless proven guilty.

His argument is instead that the authorities should have determined, after Atiku left office, whether the evidence justified prosecution.

The EFCC investigation and the US connection

Agbonayinma also pointed to investigations conducted in Nigeria and the United States.

He referred to an EFCC investigation dating from around 2005–2006 and a 2010 report by the United States Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

The US Senate investigation examined the movement of funds connected to Atiku’s then-wife, Jennifer Douglas, and offshore corporations. The Senate committee said more than $40 million in funds had been moved into the United States through offshore entities between 2000 and 2008.

However, the existence of the US report should not be confused with a recent US criminal prosecution. An AFP fact-check published in August 2026 noted that the widely circulated Senate document was from 2010, not a newly released US government investigation, and that the report did not result in criminal charges against Atiku.

That distinction is particularly relevant as the issue has resurfaced during Nigeria’s current political cycle.

Why Agbonayinma gave the EFCC 14 days

Agbonayinma’s demand was formally submitted through his lawyer, Hannibal Uwaifo of Sagitarian Law Firm.

The letter, dated August 27, 2026, was received by the EFCC on September 1. It called on the commission to reactivate the earlier investigation and pursue the matter if the evidence supports prosecution.

The former lawmaker gave the commission 14 days to respond, warning that legal action could follow if the EFCC failed to act.

For Agbonayinma, the issue is also one of consistency in the administration of justice.

He questioned why ordinary Nigerians can face prosecution and imprisonment for relatively small financial offences while allegations involving politically influential individuals can remain unresolved for years.

Atiku rejects the idea that he was shielded

Atiku has since responded to the renewed demand.

The former vice-president said the Obasanjo administration did not protect him from corruption allegations and pointed out that he was never convicted despite investigations by different institutions. He also said anyone with evidence should bring it forward.

That response places the controversy squarely around the distinction between investigation, allegation and proof.

While Agbonayinma wants the EFCC to revisit historical records, any fresh criminal case would still have to meet the evidentiary and procedural requirements of Nigerian law.

What happens next?

The immediate issue is whether the EFCC will formally respond to Agbonayinma’s petition and, if so, what position the commission will take.

The agency’s mandate includes investigating and prosecuting economic and financial crimes, and it maintains official channels through which petitions and complaints can be submitted.

If the EFCC decides to reopen the matter, investigators would likely have to examine the historical reports, available financial records, evidence from previous investigations and any material that remains legally usable after the passage of almost two decades.

If the commission declines to act, the threatened legal action against the agency could become the next stage of the dispute.

Why the development matters

The controversy comes at a politically sensitive moment, with Atiku now serving as the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 elections.

That political context makes the handling of the allegations particularly significant.

For supporters of renewed investigation, the issue is about accountability and whether political status should prevent old allegations from being properly resolved.

For Atiku and his supporters, however, the allegations remain historical claims that should not be treated as proof of wrongdoing without a court establishing criminal liability.

The key question going forward is therefore not simply whether the old allegations will generate headlines again, but whether the relevant authorities will produce a legally sustainable conclusion based on evidence.

LMSINT MEDIA will continue to monitor the EFCC’s response and any subsequent legal or political developments.