{
  "id": 10326839,
  "title": "Fani-Kayode on Atiku: Separating Claims from the Record",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/28/fani-kayode-on-atiku-separating-claims-from-the-record",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-28T00:59:52.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "This Day",
    "slug": "this-day",
    "url": "https://www.thisdaylive.com/2026/09/28/fani-kayode-on-atiku-separating-claims-from-the-record/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Fani-Kayode has penned a lengthy critique of Atiku Abubakar, but some of his claims require correction or proper context. First, he states that Atiku has sought the presidency in seven attempts since 1993. However, Atiku did not run as a presidential candidate in the 1993, 2011, or 2015 general elections – those were party nomination contests. He only appeared on the ballot in 2007, 2019, and 2023. This makes his fourth general-election presidential candidacy, not his seventh.\n\nNext, Fani-Kayode compares Atiku's unsuccessful party primaries to actual presidential elections in other countries, drawing an unfair comparison. Nigeria's Constitution does not bar someone from running because they have been defeated in previous elections. Section 137 only prohibits someone who has already served two terms from running again.\n\nFani-Kayode asserts that Atiku has been affiliated with seven political parties. He includes the People's Front of Nigeria (PFN) in this count, but the PFN was never officially recognized as a party and was later absorbed by other parties. This comparison is misleading, as Fani-Kayode has himself switched between parties as well.\n\nRegarding the 2003 conflict between Obasanjo and Atiku, Fani-Kayode presents a single perspective without considering the other side. Atiku has stated that PDP governors approached him to challenge Obasanjo for the party ticket in 2003, and he has repeated this account in recent years. While there are differing accounts of the negotiations, Fani-Kayode's framing of it as a clear case of treachery is not supported by the facts.\n\nAdditionally, Fani-Kayode mentions a Mambilla arbitration involving Atiku, Siemens, and Halliburton, but he fails to provide the full details. The tribunal found that Atiku did not misuse his official duties to secure the contract, and he did not have the final say in the award. Therefore, Fani-Kayode's assertion of \"established corruption findings\" is premature.\n\nLastly, Fani-Kayode mentions a $1.2 million engagement between Atiku and a Washington-based firm, Von Batten-Montague-York. The engagement details are publicly available through the Foreign Agents Registration Act filing. However, Fani-Kayode portrays this as evidence of corruption without providing context. The filing clearly states that the firm was hired for government-affairs representation and strategic advisory work, and the $1.2 million figure is disclosed in the filing.",
  "summary": "By Paul Ibe Chief Femi Fani-Kayode has written a lengthy polemic against Atiku Abubakar. Length, however, is not evidence. Nor does repetition transform opinion, disputed recollection or allegation into fact.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}