Atiku challenges Tinubu to name ministers, appointees involved in alleged bribery

The allegation came from Alwan Hassan, an APC Presidential Campaign Council spokesperson. During an Arise News interview, he claimed that some ministers pay billions of naira to secure appointments. He did not identify any minister or recipient.

Atiku Abubakar responded by challenging President Bola Tinubu on X. He pointed out that Tinubu appointed the ministers and asked, “who received the money?” His demand is for the alleged recipients to be named, not for the issue to remain unanswered.

The dispute matters because the reported allegation concerns the integrity of public appointments. Atiku also linked it to the cost-of-living crisis and ministry funding. Hassan defended the administration by citing power and education initiatives, while maintaining that appointment-related payments predated the APC’s time in government.

Bribery for a government appointment means offering, paying, requesting, or accepting money or another benefit in exchange for securing public office. The alleged payment is improper because it turns a public decision into a private transaction. It can undermine merit, accountability, and public trust.

A legitimate appointment is based on lawful authority, relevant qualifications, and an official process. Depending on the office, that process may involve nomination, screening, confirmation, or a documented administrative decision. Money may be paid only through lawful fees, not secretly to influence the appointment.

In this case, Hassan alleged that some ministers paid billions of naira to obtain appointments and then sought to recover the money. The article does not establish that any payment occurred or identify participants. Those claims would require investigation and evidence before conclusions could be made.

Hassan described the alleged payments only as “billions of naira.” That wording indicates a very large amount, but it does not establish a precise total, a range, or a payment made by every minister. The article provides no specific amount for any individual.

He also did not name a minister who allegedly paid for an appointment. He failed to identify anyone who supposedly received the money. His comments therefore present a broad allegation rather than a documented list of transactions.

That lack of detail is central to Atiku Abubakar’s response. Atiku asked President Tinubu to provide names, arguing that Nigerians deserve disclosure. The article reports the accusation and the political challenge, but it does not confirm the payments or describe any investigation, charge, or finding against a minister.

Paying for an appointment creates a financial incentive to recover the money. The officeholder may treat public authority as an investment rather than a responsibility. That can weaken impartial decision-making and increase the risk of corruption.

Hassan described this alleged mechanism directly. He said some ministers pay billions of naira to secure appointments, then make recovering the money their first concern after taking office. Recovery could create pressure to seek improper benefits, though the article does not identify a specific minister or transaction.

The broader consequence is damage to public services and trust. If officials focus on repayment, ministry decisions may serve private interests instead of citizens. Atiku connected the issue with ministry funding and the cost-of-living crisis, while Hassan cited power and education initiatives as evidence of government performance.

Under Nigeria’s constitutional system, the president selects and nominates ministers for appointment. The Senate then considers and confirms the nominees. After confirmation, the president formally appoints them. This structure combines executive selection with legislative scrutiny.

The president therefore has substantial authority over who enters the cabinet. However, the Senate’s confirmation role is an important legal step. A minister’s appointment is not simply an informal choice made without institutional involvement. The article itself states that Tinubu appointed the ministers, while the fuller process comes from established Nigerian constitutional knowledge.

This matters to the dispute because Atiku directed his demand to Tinubu. He asked the president to identify who allegedly received payments connected with appointments. The article does not report any Senate response, confirmation details, investigation, or finding that money changed hands.

Hassan’s claim places the alleged appointment payments beyond the current APC administration. He said the practice was “not just APC ministers” and that it started before the APC. This frames the allegation as a recurring problem in Nigerian politics.

The concrete point is continuity. Hassan did not provide dates, earlier administrations, named officials, or evidence of past payments. His statement therefore suggests a historical pattern in political allegations, but it does not prove that the same conduct occurred in every previous government.

The claim also shaped the political argument. Hassan was defending Tinubu’s record ahead of the 2027 general election. By saying the practice predated the APC, he shifted the discussion from one administration to a wider national problem. Atiku, however, focused on the current president’s responsibility to disclose alleged recipients.

This article does not identify the laws or institutions involved, so this overview uses established Nigerian legal knowledge. Alleged bribery can fall under criminal and anti-corruption laws, including the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act and the EFCC Act. Public-office conduct may also involve the Code of Conduct framework.

Investigations may involve the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, or the police, depending on the allegation. Investigators would seek bank records, transfers, messages, appointment documents, asset information, and witness testimony. Such material can test whether money was offered, paid, received, or linked to official influence.

Prosecutors must present admissible evidence in court, where guilt must be proved according to law. The article reports no named suspect, investigation, charge, or court finding. Hassan’s allegation and Atiku’s demand therefore remain political claims in the reported account.