Post by John Okiyi Kalu (@JOK)

US Lobbying: The Uko Chukwu & Bishop Matter

There was a matter in the United States commonly referred to as the Jennifer Douglas Abubakar case. It stemmed from U.S. investigations into alleged foreign corruption, suspicious financial transfers, and alleged bribery involving Atiku Abubakar, his wife Jennifer Douglas Abubakar (a U.S. citizen), and others.

According to a report by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Jennifer Douglas Abubakar allegedly helped transfer more than $40 million in what the report described as “suspect funds” into the United States between 2000 and 2008. The report further alleged that the funds included at least $1.7 million linked to Siemens AG bribery payments and more than $38 million from offshore companies. However, neither Atiku Abubakar nor Jennifer Douglas Abubakar was convicted in the United States in connection with those allegations.

Similarly, the case involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the United States was not a criminal prosecution against him. It was a 1993 civil asset forfeiture case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois involving funds held in bank accounts linked to him.

U.S. authorities alleged that approximately $1.4 million in certain bank accounts represented proceeds of heroin trafficking and money laundering. The matter was resolved through a settlement under which $460,000 was forfeited to the U.S. government, while the remaining funds were released. Tinubu was not convicted of any criminal offence in the United States arising from that case.

Against this background, I find it difficult to understand why Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and the ADC reportedly chose to spend $1.2 million on lobbying efforts directed at the Trump administration over President Tinubu. Both leading political figures have previously been associated with separate legal controversies in the United States, even though neither resulted in a U.S. criminal conviction.

Are they expecting President Trump to influence Nigeria’s electoral process in the way some have alleged previous U.S. administrations sought to do? Trump is not Obama. His interest in Nigeria appears to be driven primarily by his domestic political priorities, including issues such as religious freedom and broader U.S. strategic interests, rather than by a desire to shape Nigeria’s internal politics. Unless Nigeria becomes central to key U.S. economic or strategic interests, Washington is unlikely to determine the outcome of our elections. At present, Nigeria has little that would compel the United States to make our domestic politics a strategic priority.

The focus for Atiku should remain on campaigning and persuading Nigerian voters, as other major candidates, including Mazi Peter Obi and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, are doing. Rather than inviting foreign actors into our domestic political contests, politicians should concentrate on presenting credible policies and earning the confidence of the Nigerian people.

As far as the United States and its allies are concerned, concerns about corruption among sections of Nigeria’s political elite have existed for decades. Continuing to internationalize domestic political disputes is therefore unlikely to improve anyone’s standing.

Former British Prime Minister David Cameron once remarked to Queen Elizabeth II in 2016 that Nigeria was “fantastically corrupt.” Two years later, President Donald Trump reportedly referred to African nations, including Nigeria, as “shithole countries.” Whether one agrees with those characterizations or not, they illustrate that Western leaders already have deeply formed perceptions of Nigeria’s political class. Expensive lobbying campaigns are unlikely to change those perceptions.

– JOK
22/07/2026

0 likes · 0 comments · 0 shares