By Alex Ter Adum, PhD
The attempt to associate former Vice President Atiku Abubakar personally with an alleged $16 billion power-sector fraud between 1999 and 2007 must be subjected to one fundamental test: where is the evidence that Atiku participated in the transactions, authorised procurement, approved payments or benefited from the expenditure?
After years of controversy, investigations and political accusations, Nigerians deserve the truth, not recycled allegations, misleading video clips or political propaganda masquerading as historical facts.
HE. Atiku Abubakar was Vice President. He was neither President nor Minister of Power, nor was he the operational authority responsible for administering every power-sector contract. His position in government cannot, by itself, establish personal participation in any fraudulent transaction.
WHAT THE RECORD ESTABLISHES
The controversy arose from investigations into expenditure on electricity generation, transmission and distribution during the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo. Over time, the figure of $16 billion became the headline allegation, often repeated as though the entire amount had been conclusively established as money stolen.
That is a fundamental distortion of the issue.
During his response to the House of Representatives investigation in May 2008, Obasanjo addressed the controversy surrounding the expenditure and explained the projects undertaken, the financing arrangements, the state of the inherited electricity infrastructure and the implementation challenges. His written response did not identify Atiku as having participated in power-sector procurement fraud or as having personally benefited from the expenditure.
More recently, Senator Liyel Imoke, who served as Minister of Power and Steel under Obasanjo, has reportedly provided a further account of the controversy, putting the amount actually released and spent at approximately $3 billion rather than the widely circulated $16 billion. He also clarified that Atiku bore no direct personal or official responsibility for the power-sector policy actions, procurement decisions or benefits in question.
These distinctions are crucial. The figures attributed to Imoke should be examined against the relevant financial records, but they challenge the casual presentation of $16 billion as an established amount stolen. Expenditure, releases, contractual commitments and alleged misappropriation are different accounting and legal categories. They must not be conflated.
The central question remains: did the investigations establish Atiku’s personal participation in any fraudulent transaction? The material cited in the trending in obviously edited and manipulated social media video has not demonstrated such a connection.
ATIKU WAS NOT THE POWER MINISTER OR NIPP PROCUREMENT OFFICER
The constitutional and administrative distinction is straightforward. The Vice President does not automatically become the operational authority for every ministry or government programme. Responsibility depends on the applicable law, assigned duties, delegated authority and actual conduct.
The available material does not establish that Atiku was delegated to personally award NIPP contracts, directed their procurement, administered their execution, authorised payments or received proceeds from the transactions now being used to associate him with the alleged fraud.
Atiku’s disagreement with the approach adopted for the National Integrated Power Project (NIPP) is also relevant. As reflected in accounts of the dispute, he disagreed with the direction of the Power Sector Reform Committee established by his principal, President Obasanjo, and declined to preside over it.
A policy disagreement is not a criminal offence. Declining to chair a committee is not evidence of procurement fraud. Neither does membership of an administration automatically establish personal liability for every decision taken by that administration.
If anyone alleges otherwise, the burden is to identify the specific decision, transaction, instruction or financial benefit that connects Atiku to the alleged wrongdoing.
AN INVESTIGATION IS NOT A CONVICTION
The National Assembly investigated the power-sector expenditure, and the controversy also attracted the attention of the EFCC. Reports of the legislative inquiry identified concerns involving the former President, former power ministers, project implementation and companies, with recommendations for further investigation or prosecution.
Those findings must be assessed on their own terms. The identification of particular officials or companies for further investigation does not automatically implicate every other person including the Vice President who served in government during the same period.
Nor should an invitation to a public hearing be misrepresented as an indictment. The fact that an individual is invited to help answer questions does not establish wrongdoing.
The crucial point been made is that the materials cited here have not established that Atiku personally authorised a fraudulent transaction, participated in NIPP procurement fraud or benefited from the alleged $16 billion expenditure and has no prima facie case of indictment to answer on that score.
Anyone circulating an obviously edited and manipulated video that implies otherwise should produce the evidence.
Nigeria’s electricity crisis deserves accountability. Every public fund must be accounted for, every questionable contract investigated and every person against whom credible evidence of wrongdoing exists held accountable.
But accountability must be based on evidence, not political vendetta.
The failure of an administration to deliver reliable electricity does not make every member of that administration a criminal. A disputed expenditure figure does not establish that the entire amount was stolen. And the allegation of a multibillion-dollar fraud cannot establish the personal guilt of an individual without evidence of that individual’s involvement.
Those promoting the viral video must identify the contract Atiku allegedly influenced, the payment he allegedly authorised, the procurement decision he allegedly controlled or the proceeds he allegedly received. Repeating the same allegation does not supply the missing evidence.
CONCLUSION: THE $16 BILLION ALLEGATION MUST NOT BECOME A $16 BILLION LIE AGAINST ATIKU
The historical record must be confronted honestly. Obasanjo’s written response to the National Assembly addressed the power-sector controversy without identifying Atiku as a participant in procurement fraud. Senator Liyel Imoke’s more recent account, as reported, further challenges the $16 billion narrative and exculpates Atiku from direct responsibility for the sector’s policy and procurement decisions.
Neither statement should be stretched beyond what it establishes. But neither should it be ignored when evaluating allegations against Atiku.
Let the accusers produce the transaction, the procurement record, the payment authorisation or the evidence of personal benefit. If they cannot, they have no factual basis for presenting Atiku Abubakar as a participant in the alleged fraud.
Atiku was Vice President during the period under scrutiny. That is an established fact. His personal participation in the alleged $16 billion fraud is not established by the material that was placed before the National Assembly and the EFCC. The two propositions are not interchangeable.
A viral video is not an audit report. A political accusation is not an indictment. An indictment is not a conviction. And holding public office is not proof of stealing public money.
Enough of guilt by association. Enough of recycling allegations as established facts. Enough of using a disputed national expenditure figure to smear an individual without demonstrating his personal involvement.
If there is evidence against Atiku, let it be published, examined and tested through due process. If there is none, those making the allegation should stop presenting insinuation as proof.
Nigeria deserves the truth about its power-sector expenditure, the identification of those actually responsible for any wrongdoing and accountability for every misappropriated naira or dollar. It equally deserves a public debate in which facts matter more than political propaganda.
You cannot turn a man into a fraudster merely because he served in a government where fraud was alleged. Produce the evidence, or the withdraw the accusation.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
DDG, THE NARRATIVE FORCE
