Keypoints:
- Atiku signed a $1.2m US lobbying deal
- FARA filings detail a Washington influence strategy
- Dare says 2027 must focus on performance
THE coordinated publicity surrounding a Washington advisory firm should not be mistaken for an intelligence breakthrough. What it reveals more clearly is a political strategy increasingly reliant on foreign validation at a time when Nigeria’s opposition should be making its strongest case directly to Nigerian voters.
Strip away the dramatic language surrounding recent claims and one fact stands out: former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has retained a Washington-based government affairs and strategic advisory firm on a substantial contract.
Publicly available filings with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, identify Atiku as the client of Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C. The agreement runs for 12 months and carries total professional fees of $1.2m.
That is neither speculation nor partisan interpretation. It is contained in documents filed with the US government.
More revealing is the declared purpose of the engagement. The agreement includes advancing understanding of Atiku’s leadership and policy vision among US policymakers, strengthening his reputational standing in Washington and seeking to ‘counterbalance incumbent-government lobbying narratives through lawful engagement’.
It also provides for engagement with members of Congress, congressional staff and executive-branch officials.
Those provisions deserve scrutiny because they illuminate where a significant part of the opposition’s political energy is now being directed.
Lobbying should not masquerade as authority
Dr Karl-Marx Okeke-Von Batten is associated with Von Batten-Montague-York, the firm registered to undertake this work.
That distinction matters.
Whatever professional descriptions individuals associated with the firm may use, statements made in pursuit of a disclosed lobbying and strategic advisory mandate should be evaluated within the context of that paid political and reputational engagement.
FARA filings describe activities that include government affairs, strategic advice, communications, perception management, narrative positioning and engagement with American policymakers.
They do not, however, transform representatives of the firm into neutral arbiters of Nigerian politics.
There is nothing inherently improper about employing registered lobbyists in Washington. Governments, companies, advocacy organisations and political figures routinely retain firms to advance their interests before American institutions.
The relevant question is therefore not whether lobbying itself is legitimate. It is why an opposition seeking to govern Nigeria appears to attach such considerable political value to influencing perceptions thousands of miles away from the electorate whose mandate it ultimately needs.
That is a legitimate political question Nigerians are entitled to ask.
US records must follow due process
The renewed debate over decades-old US records involving President Bola Tinubu provides an obvious vehicle for this international political strategy.
But legal proceedings should not be converted into political theatre.
Freedom of Information Act litigation in the United States has sought records from agencies including the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration relating to historical investigations.
A US court previously directed the FBI and DEA to search for and process non-exempt responsive records after rejecting attempts to neither confirm nor deny the existence of relevant material.
That decision was about disclosure obligations under American freedom-of-information law. It did not amount to a finding of criminal guilt or innocence.
More recently, President Tinubu’s US legal representatives have argued that certain investigative material should remain withheld or redacted under American privacy and law-enforcement exemptions.
That position is now a matter for the American judicial process.
Wole Afolabi, SAN, a member of the legal team, has also argued publicly that the disclosure dispute should not be confused with proof of criminal wrongdoing and that the political contest in 2027 will ultimately be decided by what candidates offer Nigerians.
Whether one agrees with that argument or not, there is a broader principle worth defending.
American courts and law-enforcement agencies should execute their statutory responsibilities according to American law, evidence and established procedure. Neither political pressure from Abuja nor lobbying activity in Washington should determine the outcome.
The records should speak for themselves when and where the law permits their release.
Political messaging should not be allowed to outrun what the judicial process actually establishes.
Where is the domestic alternative?
The larger political issue is what this Washington campaign says about the priorities of an opposition preparing for another consequential election.
Nigeria is debating inflation, energy costs, food security, infrastructure, employment, insecurity, taxation, industrialisation and the difficult consequences of economic reform.
These are precisely the areas in which any serious alternative government should be building its case.
President Bola Tinubu’s administration has undertaken far-reaching macroeconomic reforms, including the removal of the petrol subsidy and changes to the foreign-exchange system.
Those reforms have imposed undeniable hardships on millions of Nigerians as the economy adjusts.
An opposition aspiring to replace the government therefore has significant political ground on which to challenge the administration.
But criticism is not a governing programme.
Where is the competing fiscal framework?
What is the alternative approach to subsidies?
How would an opposition government finance infrastructure, boost agricultural production, manage public debt, strengthen security and create sustainable employment?
What policies would it pursue to attract investment while protecting vulnerable Nigerians from economic shocks?
These are the debates that should define the road to 2027.
Instead, there is a danger that every disclosure dispute, every Washington memorandum and every development in a foreign court is elevated into the centrepiece of domestic opposition politics.
Nigeria deserves a more substantive contest.
Nigerian elections are decided in Nigeria
There is also a deeper democratic principle at stake.
Political legitimacy in Nigeria cannot be imported.
It comes from persuading Nigerians that a political movement possesses the competence, vision and credibility required to govern.
It comes from organisation in communities, engagement with citizens and the presentation of policies capable of surviving scrutiny.
Spending heavily on Washington representation may improve access to policymakers or amplify political messaging abroad. The agreement itself provides for reputational strategy, policy positioning, messaging and engagement with US institutions.
But none of those activities casts a single vote in Nigeria.
No Washington consultant can replace grassroots organisation in Kano, Lagos, Enugu, Port Harcourt, Ibadan or any other part of the country.
No briefing memorandum on Capitol Hill can substitute for an agricultural programme capable of improving farmers’ incomes.
No foreign lobbying strategy can replace a credible plan for creating jobs, reducing insecurity, strengthening electricity supply or giving young Nigerians greater economic opportunity.
The 2027 election will ultimately demand answers to Nigerian questions.
Government must also face the test
None of this exempts the Tinubu administration from accountability.
Its reforms, infrastructure projects, security policies and institutional changes will have to be judged on their measurable impact on citizens.
That is how democratic politics should work.
The government must defend its record.
The opposition must present a credible alternative.
Nigerians must then decide.
If economic reforms fail to improve living standards, voters have every right to demand explanations. If promises are not delivered, the electorate is entitled to hold the government accountable.
But the same standard must apply to those seeking power.
Opposition politics must amount to more than attacking the incumbent. It must answer the harder question: what would you do differently?
That is where a serious contest for Nigeria’s future should be fought.
The ballot remains the final judge
Foreign engagement can complement political strategy. It cannot substitute for one.
The strongest opposition to any government is not a foreign lobbyist, a dramatic communiqué or a revived archive. It is a persuasive programme capable of convincing citizens that their lives would materially improve under different leadership.
Nigeria’s democracy is mature enough to withstand noisy international public-relations battles.
President Tinubu’s reforms should be judged by their results, just as those seeking to replace him should be judged by the strength of the alternatives they offer.
Washington can host consultants, lobbyists, policymakers and political advocates from every part of the world.
But Washington cannot confer the Nigerian presidency.
That authority belongs to the Nigerian people.
When the campaigns begin in earnest, voters will be interested in food prices, jobs, security, electricity, education, healthcare, roads and economic opportunity.
Those are the real battlegrounds of 2027.
Ultimately, no amount spent on political positioning abroad can replace the difficult work of winning the confidence of Nigerians at home.
Dr Sunday Dare is Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications
