Atiku Fires Back at Presidency: ‘The Issue Is the Documents, Not the Lobbyist’

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s camp has challenged the Presidency to address the substance of U.S. records at the centre of the latest political dispute, rather than focusing on the background of Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten.

The latest exchange between the camps of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and President Bola Tinubu has shifted attention from the identity of a U.S. lobbyist to a wider argument over court records, foreign lobbying and the use of American institutions in Nigeria’s increasingly heated 2027 political contest.

Phrank Shaibu, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to Atiku, said the Presidency was concentrating on the wrong issue after Presidential Special Adviser on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, criticised Atiku’s relationship with Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C.

According to Shaibu, the question is not who the lobbyist is, but what publicly available U.S. documents actually contain.

Atiku camp redirects debate to U.S. records

Shaibu argued that the Presidency should respond to records surrounding a long-running U.S. legal matter involving an account bearing Tinubu’s name instead of attempting to discredit the person handling Atiku’s Washington lobbying activities.

The Atiku camp referred specifically to a $460,000 civil forfeiture matter in the United States.

Shaibu was careful to distinguish the forfeiture proceeding from a criminal conviction. He said the case should not be presented as proof that Tinubu was criminally convicted, but maintained that the absence of such a conviction does not mean the underlying court records cease to exist.

“The documents are there,” he said, insisting that the contents of those records should form the basis of the public debate.

That distinction is important because the political argument has increasingly mixed together several different concepts — civil forfeiture, criminal investigation, criminal conviction and allegations — even though they have different legal meanings.

What triggered the latest controversy?

The immediate dispute followed criticism from the Presidency over Atiku’s engagement of Von Batten-Montague-York, a Washington-based lobbying and strategic advisory firm.

Public U.S. records confirm that the firm registered an engagement involving Atiku under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The U.S. Department of Justice filing identifies Atiku as the foreign principal and Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C. as the registrant. The filing describes services including government-affairs representation, strategic advisory work, policy positioning, reputational strategy and outreach to members of Congress and their staff.

The reported agreement is worth $1.2 million over 12 months, making the financial size of the engagement one of the major reasons it attracted political attention in Nigeria.

Rather than denying the existence of the arrangement, Atiku’s camp is defending the engagement as a disclosed professional contract.

FARA disclosure becomes central to the argument

A significant part of Atiku’s defence is that the lobbying arrangement was not hidden.

Under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, certain representatives working for foreign principals are required to make disclosures to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The April 2026 filing involving Atiku provides documentary evidence of the relationship and outlines the services covered by the agreement.

This means the political argument is not simply about whether Atiku hired a lobbyist. That fact is already reflected in public U.S. records.

The more consequential question is what the lobbying arrangement was designed to accomplish and whether similar lobbying practices have also been used by the Nigerian government.

Atiku camp points to Federal Government’s own U.S. lobbying deal

Shaibu also turned the spotlight on the Federal Government’s engagement of DCI Group.

Reports based on U.S. filings put the Nigerian government’s agreement with DCI Group AZ, LLC at $750,000 per month for an initial six months, representing $4.5 million. The arrangement has also been reported as potentially reaching $9 million if the contract is extended under its terms.

The reported government engagement is connected to efforts to communicate Nigeria’s position to U.S. policymakers, including issues involving security, religious communities and counterterrorism.

That comparison forms the heart of Atiku’s latest response.

His camp is effectively asking why lobbying in Washington should be portrayed as evidence of political desperation when undertaken by an opposition figure, while the Federal Government itself employs a U.S. lobbying firm.

Shaibu therefore challenged the Presidency to explain its own expenditure before condemning Atiku’s decision to engage a Washington-based firm.

The money matters, but the disclosure matters too

The two arrangements are not identical and should not automatically be treated as equivalent.

Atiku’s reported contract is for $1.2 million over 12 months, while the government’s reported DCI arrangement is substantially larger on a monthly and initial-contract basis. The stated objectives and contractual structures also differ.

However, the comparison has political significance because both cases illustrate how Nigerian political and governmental interests are seeking to influence or explain their positions within U.S. policy circles.

That makes transparency around the contracts, their objectives and their results more important than personal attacks against the individuals involved.

Why Karl Von Batten became part of the political battle

The dispute has increasingly moved toward questions about Von Batten himself, including his professional history and personal background.

Recent reports have examined his Nigerian roots, different versions of his name and aspects of his professional biography.

But Atiku’s camp says those questions are beside the point.

Shaibu’s argument is that the credibility of a document should be examined through the document itself and the relevant institutions, rather than determined by speculation about the personal life or background of the person presenting it.

In other words, the opposition camp wants the political debate to move from “Who is Von Batten?” to “What do the U.S. records actually establish?”

The wider 2027 political context

The timing of the controversy is significant.

With Nigerian political actors already positioning themselves ahead of the 2027 general elections, Washington has become an increasingly important arena for competing narratives about Nigeria’s democracy, security, governance and political leadership.

Atiku’s $1.2 million engagement was itself described in the FARA filing as involving strategic advisory and government-affairs activities, including engagement with U.S. policymakers and efforts relating to his reputation and policy positioning.

The Federal Government’s separate engagement with DCI Group similarly demonstrates that lobbying and strategic communications in Washington are not unique to one political camp.

The dispute is therefore becoming less about whether Nigerian actors lobby in the United States and more about how much they spend, what they seek to achieve and how those activities are presented to Nigerians.

What readers should watch next

The immediate next step in the dispute is likely to be a deeper battle over documentary evidence.

The key areas to watch include:

• Further U.S. court documents connected to the issues raised by Atiku’s camp.
• Additional FARA filings and amendments relating to Atiku’s lobbying arrangement.
• Documentation surrounding the Federal Government’s DCI Group contract.
• Any formal response from the Presidency to the $460,000 forfeiture records cited by Shaibu.
• Whether either side produces new documentary evidence capable of independently settling disputed claims.

For the public, the distinction between allegation, investigation, civil forfeiture and criminal conviction will remain particularly important.

Political statements can frame an issue in competing ways, but court documents, government filings and other primary records provide a stronger basis for determining what actually happened.

The bigger question

Atiku’s response has effectively reframed the confrontation.

Instead of allowing the debate to remain centred on the character and credentials of a U.S. lobbyist, his camp wants Nigerians to examine the underlying records and compare the lobbying activities of both the opposition and the Federal Government.

The Presidency, meanwhile, faces the political challenge of explaining its own Washington spending while defending its position on the U.S. records being cited by Atiku’s camp.

As the 2027 political contest approaches, the dispute is likely to continue moving between Nigeria and Washington — with documents, lobbying contracts and competing interpretations of U.S. records increasingly becoming part of Nigeria’s domestic political battle.