Atiku: Produce conviction evidence or… – ADC challenges APC - Vanguard News

The African Democratic Congress, ADC, Presidential Campaign Council has challenged the All Progressives Congress, APC, to produce any court judgment convicting former Vice President Atiku Abubakar of the allegations being levelled against him by the party, accusing its spokesman, Felix Morka, of turning allegations into verdicts.

The Council said Nigerians were less interested in political insults than in answers to the pressures they face daily, from the cost of food and fuel to transport and electricity.

In a statement by its Director of Strategic Communications, Phrank Shaibu, the Council said Morka could raise questions about Atiku’s record but could not present allegations as established convictions.

“Morka has become an untutored spin doctor for a party caught in the conundrum of a sinking regime,” Shaibu said.

He challenged the APC spokesman to identify the court and produce the judgment if he claimed Atiku had been convicted of corruption.

“Morka may raise each matter. He may not strip away the report’s distinctions and present the resulting fiction as a judgment against Atiku,” Shaibu said.

The Council then turned the APC’s attack on Atiku’s suitability to manage public funds against President Bola Tinubu, citing the United States forfeiture proceedings involving $460,000 from an account in Tinubu’s name.

Shaibu said the proceedings and associated financial records raised questions about transactions involving Tinubu and individuals named in the case.

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

The Council also cited the US litigation over access to FBI and other investigative records concerning Tinubu, arguing that Nigerians should be allowed to see the relevant documents, subject to lawful protections.

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

He said the distinction did not erase the questions surrounding the records.

“Yes, the case before the court concerns access to records. The records concern an investigation. Both facts can be true at once,” Shaibu said.

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.