Keep up with the latest news and be part of our weekly giveaways and airtime sharing; follow our WhatsApp channel for more updates. Click to Follow us

Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has described the Presidency’s reference to China while criticising him as a major political blunder.

ZINGTIE recalls that the Tinubu administration had earlier criticised Atiku, claiming that if he were in China, he would have remained behind bars over allegations that he hired lobbyists to revive President Bola Tinubu’s alleged United States forfeiture case.

Reacting through a statement issued by his spokesman, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said it was ironic that the Presidency had celebrated what he described as a routine diplomatic response from the United States government as though it were an endorsement, a badge of honour and proof of innocence all at once.

He argued that by introducing China into the debate, the Presidency inadvertently opened the door to comparisons that ultimately reflected negatively on President Bola Tinubu.

According to Atiku, the comparison has only subjected President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to increased public scrutiny.

“It takes a peculiar kind of unintelligence for a spokesman to set out to drag an opponent before a hypothetical Chinese court, only to end up dragging his own principal into the dock.

“Perhaps the spokesman did not realise that the maximum penalty under Chinese law for the most serious drug trafficking offences is death. Having chosen China as his benchmark, he unwittingly invited Nigerians to examine the very standard he thought would embarrass Atiku Abubakar.

“The facts are neither complicated nor disputable. Atiku Abubakar has never been indicted or convicted by any court in Nigeria or anywhere else in the world for corruption, narcotics offences or, indeed, any criminal offence whatsoever. That is an incontrovertible matter of public record.

“If, however, the Presidency insists that China is now the standard by which public accountability should be measured, Nigerians are equally entitled to ask what the Chinese authorities would have done in a case involving the forfeiture of $460,000 to the United States government in a civil forfeiture proceeding concerning funds alleged to be connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

“China is renowned for its uncompromising approach to narcotics-related offences and public accountability. It is not a jurisdiction where the forfeiture of suspicious proceeds ordinarily marks the end of official scrutiny. More often than not, that is where scrutiny begins.

“And since the Presidency has elected to make China the reference point, let us go a step further. The Tinubu administration should acquaint itself with the Chinese criminal justice system’s uncompromising treatment of corruption, abuse of public office and the misappropriation of state resources.

“Not in China would a President sign into law a national budget immersed in scandals, padding and duplicitous appropriations. Not in China would a President look the other way while a senior presidential aide faces grave allegations of creating a fake government agency. Not in China would a government campaign on Renewed Hope only to deliver renewed hardship to its citizens. These are precisely the reasons the Presidency should have been more circumspect before invoking China.

“That is precisely why the Presidency’s argument has collapsed under the weight of its own contradiction. By invoking China, its spokesman has unwittingly invited Nigerians to apply the very standard he thought would embarrass Atiku Abubakar.

“Indeed, President Tinubu may wish to reflect on whether a spokesman who so casually drags his own principal into such an avoidable comparison has truly served his interests. A media adviser is employed to protect his principal from political landmines, not to march him straight into one.

“The Presidency should also stop brandishing the United States government’s reply to its diplomatic correspondence as though it were a judicial acquittal. Diplomatic correspondence between sovereign governments is routine. It is neither a court judgment, nor a declaration of innocence, nor an instrument for rewriting history.

“The lesson here is simple. Those who invoke China must be prepared to accept the Chinese standard—not selectively, not rhetorically, but completely. Accountability is not a buffet from which governments choose only the dishes they find palatable.

“The Tinubu administration would do better to devote its dwindling political capital to confronting the economic hardship, rising hunger, insecurity and institutional decline afflicting Nigerians instead of manufacturing diversions that collapse at the slightest contact with the facts,” he stated.

Please don’t forget to “Allow the notification” so you will be the first to get our gist when we publish it. 
Drop your comment in the section below, and don’t forget to share the post.