Jonathan Did Not Approve $2.1bn Arms Deal Funds for Campaign Use – Magu Explains

Former Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu, has given a detailed explanation on why former President Goodluck Jonathan was never summoned or interrogated in connection with the controversial $2.1 billion arms procurement deal.

According to Magu, investigations carried out by the EFCC revealed that the funds linked to the arms deal were not formally approved for political campaign activities. He explained that documents, internal memos, and official records examined during the investigation did not show any authorization by the former president permitting the money to be used for campaign purposes.

Magu clarified that the EFCC’s decision was based strictly on documentary evidence reviewed by investigators. These documents, he noted, played a crucial role in determining responsibility and guiding the commission’s actions throughout the probe.

This disclosure was made public through a book titled From Soldier to Statesman: The Legacy of Muhammadu Buhari, authored by Dr. Charles Omole. The book was officially launched at the Presidential Villa in Abuja, attracting notable political figures and stakeholders.

The publication offers an extensive account of the life and leadership journey of the late former President Muhammadu Buhari. It covers his early military career, transition into democratic politics, and his tenure as Nigeria’s civilian president.

In the book, Omole highlighted that the management of the arms procurement funds created significant tension within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the time. According to the narrative, the controversy led to heightened internal disagreements and suspicion among party leaders.

As investigations progressed, several prominent figures within the PDP were reportedly invited by anti-corruption agencies to respond to allegations concerning the diversion of public funds linked to the arms deal. These developments, the author noted, deepened divisions within the party and intensified public scrutiny of government financial practices during that period.

The account presented in the book reinforces Magu’s position that investigative decisions were guided by available records and approvals, rather than political considerations or assumptions.