Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has pushed back against renewed calls for his prosecution over alleged financial misconduct dating back to 2006, describing the revival of the controversy as a political distraction from the economic hardship facing Nigerians.
The development follows a fresh petition by former House of Representatives member Ehiozuwa Johnson Agbonayinma, who has asked the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to revisit its September 2006 investigation report on Atiku and examine a February 4, 2010, report by the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The petition, dated August 27, 2026, was received by the EFCC on September 1 through Agbonayinma’s lawyer, Chief Hannibal Egbe Uwaifo, SAN. The former lawmaker later appeared at the commission’s headquarters in Jabi, Abuja, where he formally adopted the petition and answered questions from investigators.
Agbonayinma has argued that the allegations should not remain unresolved and that the anti-graft agency should explain what became of its earlier investigation. He alleged that the EFCC had indicated that Atiku could face prosecution after leaving office as vice-president, when the constitutional immunity attached to the office no longer applied, but that no prosecution followed.
The petitioner has urged the commission to review the earlier materials and determine whether further action is warranted. He has also disclosed that he petitioned United States President Donald Trump over the matter.
Atiku, however, has rejected what he described as the recycling of decades-old allegations, arguing that political opponents were seeking to revive the controversy instead of addressing questions about the government’s handling of the economy.
In a response reported in connection with the petition, the former vice-president challenged those making allegations against him to produce credible evidence and allow the issues to be tested through lawful processes. He also maintained that he had not been convicted over the allegations.
Atiku argued that the public debate should focus on pressing concerns such as food prices, transportation costs, the difficulties facing businesses and the declining purchasing power of households. He warned against using state institutions as political instruments against opposition figures ahead of the 2027 general election.
Agbonayinma has denied that his petition was motivated by the coming election, insisting that his objective is accountability and that the law should apply equally to influential politicians and ordinary citizens.
The controversy centres on the EFCC’s 2006 report and the subsequent US Senate subcommittee report, which examined financial transactions and concerns involving politically exposed individuals. The existence of the reports and the new petition does not, by itself, establish criminal liability against Atiku.
The EFCC has yet to publicly clarify the status of the matter or confirm whether it has formally reopened the investigation. The commission’s response will be central to determining whether the petition leads to further investigative steps.
With political parties and aspirants preparing for the 2027 elections, the dispute has renewed debate over the independence of anti-corruption agencies, the treatment of politically influential individuals and the need to distinguish genuine accountability efforts from partisan manoeuvring.
For now, the immediate question is whether the EFCC will act on the petition and publicly explain the status of the earlier investigation. Any decision on prosecution would ultimately depend on the available evidence and the applicable legal process.