Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has insisted that he was never found guilty by any court or independent committee that investigated suspicious international financial transactions linked to him or his former wife, Jennifer Douglas.
In a right of reply issued by his spokesperson, Paul Ibe, Atiku responded to a recent media examination of five cases involving alleged suspicious transactions, offshore companies and claims of bribery. He maintained that the allegations did not establish that he was corrupt or that he abused his office while serving as Nigeria’s vice president.
Atiku and Ms Douglas, a dual US-Nigerian citizen, married in 2003 and divorced in June 2021. Over the years, the pair have been linked to several investigations in the United States concerning large fund transfers through offshore entities and bank accounts.
One case referenced was a 2010 report by the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Released on 4 February 2010, it examined more than $40 million in suspect funds transferred into the United States between 2000 and 2008 through offshore companies and US accounts associated with Atiku, Ms Douglas and related entities. Approximately $25 million reportedly entered more than 30 US bank accounts held in the names of Ms Douglas, the Jennifer Douglas Abubakar Family Trust, the Gede Foundation and the American University of Nigeria. The report noted that Ms Douglas told banks her husband transferred millions through offshore companies.
Another matter involved a $500,000 payment into a US bank account belonging to Ms Douglas in January 2003, while Atiku was vice president. The International Chamber of Commerce arbitration tribunal in Paris, in findings delivered on 17 September, examined the payment in connection with the stalled Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project. It found that Leno Adesanya of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company transferred the sum from a Swiss account of his offshore company, China Castle Investments Limited, to an account controlled by Ms Douglas. Adesanya failed to prove the payment was unrelated to the contract award.
A further case concerned US Securities and Exchange Commission allegations involving Siemens and four Nigerian telecommunications contracts worth about $130 million. The SEC claimed Siemens paid at least $4.5 million in bribes channelled through fictitious consultancy agreements, with roughly $2.8 million allegedly routed through a Potomac, Maryland, bank account in Ms Douglas’ name.
In the William Jefferson matter, a US court convicted the former congressman after evidence showed he discussed bribery with Atiku regarding efforts to promote iGate in Nigeria. Jefferson claimed he delivered $100,000 in cash to Atiku, yet FBI agents later found $90,000 in marked notes hidden in his freezer.
The fifth case involved an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission forensic investigation into the Petroleum Technology Development Fund. The EFCC alleged that Atiku, as vice president, approved the release and placement of $20 million in Trans International Bank without the required appropriation and Federal Executive Council approval, describing the transaction as an abuse of office.
In his response, Atiku addressed each case separately. On the Mambilla payment, he argued that suspicion surrounding the $500,000 transfer did not constitute a finding that he corruptly procured the contract. He noted he was not a party to the arbitration between Sunrise Power and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and stressed that no evidence established he used his office to secure the deal for Sunrise.
Regarding the Jefferson allegation, he pointed out that Jefferson was convicted while he was not. The appellate record showed Jefferson still possessed at least $90,000 of the purported bribe money, underscoring the difference between a planned bribe and proof that an official received it.
On the Siemens matter, Atiku stated there was no evidence of his direct involvement. He asked whether he was personally charged, tried or convicted, arguing that liability established against Siemens and its intermediaries could not automatically transfer to him merely because a family member’s account appeared in the investigation.
On the PTDF controversy, he described it as a Nigerian administrative and political dispute arising from tensions with then-President Olusegun Obasanjo rather than an international corruption case. He noted that a Senate ad hoc committee found no direct evidence of personal enrichment, only procedural lapses, and questioned why no prosecution followed after he left office and lost constitutional immunity in 2007.
Addressing the US Senate and related FinCEN material, Atiku argued that funds labelled “suspect” were not automatically stolen. As a politically exposed person, his transactions attracted enhanced scrutiny, but a Suspicious Activity Report is not a criminal conviction.
He also disputed any suggestion that he fled the United States due to scrutiny, calling claims about the sale of his Potomac home and relocation to Dubai assertions of motive unsupported by court judgments or agency findings. He similarly cautioned against speculation on past US visa difficulties that had not been independently established.