Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation over the reported distribution of luxury sport utility vehicles to APC youth leaders, alleging that the vehicles cost more than ₦150 million each and may have been funded with public resources.
The Presidency has rejected the allegations as politically motivated, saying Atiku provided no verifiable evidence to support his claims.
Atiku’s position was contained in a statement issued by Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication for the ADC Presidential Campaign Council. He alleged that the vehicles were 2026 models donated by First Lady Oluremi Tinubu to APC youth leaders.
According to Atiku, Nigerians have a right to know who paid for the vehicles, the total cost of the reported gifts and whether public funds were involved.
“Nigerians deserve to know where the money came from to buy and distribute so many 2026 model SUVs, each worth more than ₦150 million, for political mobilisation,” Atiku said.
He questioned the First Lady’s role in the reported donations, noting that she holds no elected or executive office. He asked whether the vehicles were purchased with personal funds, private donations or public resources.
Atiku described the reported gifts as insensitive at a time when many Nigerians are struggling with food prices, high transport costs, insecurity and unemployment.
He also referred to earlier reports that APC women leaders had received luxury vehicles, alleging that the development could indicate an attempt to use public wealth to secure political loyalty.
The former vice president further criticised what he described as displays of privilege by people close to the administration, including reports that an APC youth leader travels by private jet and images purportedly showing President Bola Tinubu’s son, Seyi Tinubu, wearing an expensive Richard Mille wristwatch.
“When Nigerians are being asked to tighten their belts, those closest to government cannot continue to flaunt extraordinary privilege without answering legitimate questions about wealth and spending,” Atiku said.
He promised that, if elected president, his administration would investigate any public funds found to have been spent illegally and prosecute those responsible.
However, the Presidency dismissed Atiku’s allegations, describing them as misleading, politically motivated and unsupported by documentary evidence.
In its proposed response, the Presidency said it had not authorised the diversion of public funds for political patronage and challenged Atiku or his representatives to submit any evidence of wrongdoing to the appropriate investigative authorities.
“The allegations attributed to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar are unfortunate and reflect an attempt to politicise every issue, regardless of the facts,” the Presidency said.
It argued that private contributions or activities by individuals and organisations should not automatically be presented as official government expenditure.
The Presidency also said the First Lady’s initiatives had focused on supporting women, children, families and vulnerable Nigerians, and should not be misrepresented as evidence of financial misconduct.
The administration acknowledged the economic difficulties facing Nigerians but said President Tinubu was implementing measures aimed at stabilising the economy, improving food security, expanding social protection and supporting vulnerable households.
The Presidency also rejected Atiku’s comments about the President’s family, saying public debate should focus on government policies and verifiable records rather than social-media images or claims about private possessions.
“The Presidency will not be distracted by personal attacks or exaggerated comparisons involving members of the President’s family,” it said.
The dispute has placed renewed focus on government spending, political patronage and the transparency of gifts made to party officials.
While Atiku is demanding a public account of the reported vehicles, the Presidency maintains that the allegations are speculative and has called for evidence rather than political rhetoric.
Neither the statement reviewed for this report nor the Presidency’s response provided an independently verifiable breakdown of the vehicles’ number, ownership, purchase price or source of funding.
