Tinubu’s Court Records Look Like A Gangster Film – ADC Replies Morka Over Atiku’s Alleged Corruption

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

Naija News reports that the council made the demand in response to a statement by APC spokesman, Felix Morka, who, in a statement on Thursday, declared Atiku unfit for Nigeria’s presidency over alleged past cases of corruption.

In a counter-statement on Friday, the Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Campaign Council and Atiku’s spokesperson, Phrank Shaibu, described Morka’s remarks as a “grubby attempt to conduct a trial by insult.”

Shaibu said the APC spokesman’s allegations did not address the concerns of Nigerians over the rising cost of food, fuel, transportation and electricity.

“Morka piles rumour upon insinuation, pronounces sentence in an APC press release and expects Nigerians to mistake his fury for evidence. He may shout like a prosecutor and posture like a judge, but he cannot manufacture a conviction.

“If he has a judgment against Atiku, let him produce it. If he does not, he should stop parading his allegations as the verdict of a court,” Shaibu said.

Shaibu accused Morka of reducing the issue to the treatment of allegations against Atiku as established facts.

“Morka has become an untutored spin doctor for a party caught in the conundrum of a sinking regime. Strip away the gutter language and his argument is simple: an allegation against Atiku must be treated as a conviction,” he said.

The ADC council also criticised Morka’s warning that Atiku should be kept away from the national treasury, citing allegations and legal proceedings involving President Bola Tinubu in the United States.

Shaibu referred to a US federal court affidavit concerning an investigation into narcotics trafficking and financial transactions involving several individuals whose names, he said, appeared in records connected to Tinubu.

“Tinubu court record reads at times like the script of a 1970s gangster film: an alleged heroin network, aliases, wire transfers, accounts spread across banks and relatives whose names recur in the financial trail. Yet this is no work of fiction. It is a sworn affidavit filed in a United States federal court,” he said.

Shaibu cited transactions involving Tinubu and Adegboyega Mueez Akande, alleging that Akande introduced Tinubu to First Heritage Bank and that $80,000 was subsequently transferred through a transaction linked to Akande.

He also referred to a $5,000 cashier’s cheque issued by Tinubu to Akande’s wife, Audrey, as well as corporate documents for Compass Finance, which he said listed Akande and Abiodun Agbele as directors.

“A bank introduction. A transfer. A cheque. A company. Tinubu should explain those transactions and why the same names kept appearing around his finances,” Shaibu said.

He further claimed that the affidavit contained banking records involving the First Lady, Oluremi Tinubu, stating that she held a joint checking account with her husband and had previously held another joint account at the same bank with Audrey Akande.

“The affidavit documents Oluremi Tinubu and her husband Bola as associates of the narcotics gang.

“So, the President cannot dismiss a documented financial trail by pretending Nigerians have no right to ask where it led,” Shaibu said.

The council also referred to a 2025 US federal court ruling which it said acknowledged Tinubu as a subject of a criminal investigation involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

It added that another report had shown an FBI search for “Bola” and “Tinubu” in a file involving multiple subjects.

Shaibu called on the President to support the full lawful disclosure of the relevant records.

“Morka’s colleagues will rush to tell Nigerians that a search result is not a conviction. Nobody has said it is.

“But that observation does not erase the court’s finding that Tinubu was a subject of an investigation. Nigerians deserve to know what the records say, what role he played in the events they describe, and why disclosure has been resisted,” he said.

Shaibu also rejected the Presidency’s description of the current US litigation as a civil dispute over access to records, arguing that the nature of the case did not erase the significance of the records being sought.

“Yes, the case before the court concerns access to records. The records concern an investigation. Both facts can be true at once. A press statement from Abuja cannot erase a finding in a Washington courtroom,” he said.

The ADC council further recalled that Tinubu appeared before the Code of Conduct Tribunal in 2011 over allegations that he operated foreign bank accounts while serving as Lagos State governor.

According to the council, the charges were struck out after the tribunal found that the Code of Conduct Bureau had not followed the required procedure.

“It must show the same respect for the record when Atiku’s name is involved,” Shaibu said.

On the Mambilla arbitration, the council accused Morka of confusing issues raised by the tribunal with findings allegedly made by it.

Shaibu said the tribunal questioned Leno Adesanya’s explanation concerning a $500,000 payment to Jennifer Douglas but did not find that Atiku received a bribe or used his office to secure the disputed Mambilla contract for Sunrise.

“It did not find that Atiku received a bribe or used his office to secure the disputed Mambilla contract for Sunrise. Besides, the tribunal held that there was actually no contract. So, the purported bribe was to what end?”

“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 argued.

The council also cited the 2010 United States Senate report, saying it did not establish Atiku’s criminal guilt.

“The report examined transfers involving Atiku and Douglas, but did not adjudicate Atiku’s criminal guilt. It discussed Siemens payments to an account held by Douglas without establishing that Atiku received them.

“It stated that no evidence was introduced at William Jefferson’s trial showing Atiku sought or accepted a bribe from him. It recorded a Nigerian Senate committee’s recommendation for sanctions over PTDF, but found no evidence that the Senate imposed them,” Shaibu said.