The political battle between the camps of President Bola Tinubu and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has taken another turn, with Atiku’s camp firing back at the Presidency over its criticism of a US-based lobbyist linked to the former vice president.

Phrank Shaibu, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to Atiku Abubakar, said the Presidency was focusing on the wrong issue by scrutinising the background and activities of lobbyist Karl Von Batten instead of addressing questions surrounding records in the United States.

Shaibu’s reaction followed comments by the Special Adviser on Media and Public Communications to President Tinubu, Sunday Dare, who had questioned Atiku’s relationship with the American lobbyist.

But according to Shaibu, the argument is not really about Von Batten.

He said the more important questions concern documents already available in the United States, including a civil forfeiture case involving $460,000 held in an account bearing Tinubu’s name.

Shaibu stressed that the forfeiture should not be presented as a criminal conviction, but argued that the absence of a criminal conviction does not make the court record disappear.

“The documents are there,” he said in substance, insisting that attacking the person drawing attention to them would not answer the questions raised by the records.

The Atiku camp also challenged the Presidency’s criticism of the former vice president’s reported $1.2 million lobbying engagement in the United States.

Shaibu pointed out that Atiku’s engagement with Von Batten-Montague-York was registered with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), meaning the nature and financial details of the arrangement were publicly disclosed.

He then turned the spotlight on the Federal Government’s own lobbying activities in Washington.

According to Shaibu, the Tinubu administration entered into an arrangement with DCI Group valued at $750,000 per month, translating to $4.5 million for six months, with contractual provisions that could push the total value to about $9 million.

That, he argued, raises an obvious question: why should lobbying be portrayed as questionable when it involves Atiku but defended when the Federal Government is involved?

“If Atiku’s $1.2 million for an entire year is evidence of desperation, what exactly should Nigerians call Tinubu’s arrangement of up to $9 million?” Shaibu asked.

He accused the Presidency of applying different standards to similar activities and described its focus on Von Batten’s personal background as a distraction from the substantive issues.

For Shaibu, the argument should not be about the lobbyist’s marriage, ancestry, name or business history. It should be about what the available records actually say.

He also urged the Tinubu administration to shift its attention from political exchanges and address the economic difficulties confronting Nigerians.

According to him, Nigerians are more concerned about the rising cost of food, transportation and electricity, declining purchasing power and insecurity than the latest war of words between politicians.

The Atiku camp therefore challenged the Presidency to explain its own Washington lobbying expenditure before attacking the opposition over similar engagements.

Shaibu said the 2027 election should ultimately be about the realities Nigerians face at home, rather than personal attacks and political distractions.

For him, the questions surrounding the records will not disappear simply because the people raising them are attacked.

And his message to the Presidency was straightforward: address the documents, explain the figures and let Nigerians judge the answers for themselves.