Drug related offences attract death penalty in China — Atiku replies Tinubu, Presidency

Former Vice President of Nigeria and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, Atiku Abubakar, has described the Presidency’s attempt to invoke China in attacking him as a monumental own goal.

Recall that the Tinubu Presidency had blasted Atiku, saying that if he were in China, the former vice president would have rotted in jail for allegedly paying lobbyists to revive President Bola Tinubu’s alleged United States forfeiture case.

In a statement issued by his spokesperson, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said it was ironic that while the Presidency had been busy parading the United States government’s routine reply to its diplomatic correspondence as though it were a love letter, a trophy and a certificate of innocence rolled into one, its spokesman carelessly introduced China into a conversation where the comparison immediately rebounded against his own principal.

He said that Tinubu’s presidency comparison has only exposed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to even greater 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.