Former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir David Lawal, has accused former Vice President Atiku Abubakar of being disconnected from the realities of Nigerians, while also questioning opposition coalition politics, internal party processes, and leadership credibility ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Lawal made the remarks on Tuesday during an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, where he spoke extensively on opposition realignments, party formation struggles, and what he described as recurring patterns of ambition-driven politics in Nigeria.
It would be recalled that on Monday, the Former SGF officially resigned from the African Democratic Congress (ADC), citing massive irregularities in the party’s recent presidential primary. Lawal described the election process as a fraudulent charade and accused the party leadership of manipulating the results to favour former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Stating that he refused to be part of a “rigging machine,” Lawal heavily criticized Atiku’s political competence, declaring him a worse alternative for Nigeria than President Bola Tinubu.
Following his high-profile exit, Lawal has not yet defected to another political party, choosing instead to temporarily withdraw to his home state of Adamawa. He announced plans to deeply consult with his local and national political allies before deciding on his next move ahead of the 2027 general elections. His resignation underscores a massive wave of division within the opposition coalition, which also saw key figures like Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso break away from the ADC to form the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).
However, speaking today, He said his comments on Atiku Abubakar were not personal but based on what he described as observable patterns in public conduct and leadership behaviour, insisting that national leadership must be judged by empathy, visibility, and engagement with citizens affected by insecurity and hardship.
LAWAL QUESTIONS ATIKU’S RESPONSE TO NATIONAL SUFFERING
Lawal argued that political leadership must be physically and emotionally present in moments of national crisis, especially in communities affected by insurgency, kidnappings, and violent attacks across the country.
In his words, he stated: “Have you ever seen Atiku pay condolence to communities where they were ravaged by this insurgency? Never. Have you ever heard him condemn Boko Haram killings? Never. Have you ever seen him attend a wedding ceremony in a church? Never. Has he ever apologized to anybody for all these things? Never. What does that mean? This man is completely detached from what is bothering Nigerians. Completely detached. The only one with the power to do what with it.”
He maintained that leadership without visible empathy creates distrust between citizens and those aspiring to govern them, arguing that Nigerians in rural communities bear the highest burden of insecurity and economic hardship.
COALITION POLITICS “DRIVEN BY PERSONAL AMBITION”
Turning to opposition coalition movements and internal party dynamics, Lawal said political alliances in Nigeria are often weakened by personal ambition rather than ideological unity or national interest.
He said coalition politics frequently collapses once leadership selection becomes contested, insisting that many political actors join alliances primarily to secure candidacy rather than to build governance structures.
He stated: “I don’t know. All Nigerian politicians are all the same. It turns out that everybody would join into a coalition just for the sole purpose of being the sole candidate of the coalition. And as soon as the environment begins to reveal to them that they might not be the sole candidate or the sole beneficiaries of the coalition, they begin to move and look for alternatives.”
Lawal maintained that this pattern explains why opposition alliances often struggle to remain stable, as individual ambition overrides collective agreement.
ADC FORMATION AND INTERNAL STRUGGLES
The former SGF recalled his involvement in the African Democratic Congress (ADC), explaining that his participation was driven by what he described as a need for political restructuring rather than personal ambition.
He said: “I was one of the early founding members of ADC, not because I was desirous of any political elective course or political appointment. But I thought that the coalition that will salvage Nigeria from Tinubu’s disastrous policies was necessary.”
Lawal said the coalition initially attracted several political actors, but internal disagreements and competing ambitions soon emerged.
He added: “We decided to coalesce into a political party. And we joined ADC. Everybody came in. We accepted them… And we had the meetings.”
He, however, insisted that the coalition structure gradually weakened as ambition overtook collective purpose.
“So you can see it is personal ambition, no national interest that was driving at least those two.”
INTERNAL PARTY PROCESSES AND ACCUSATIONS OF FRAUD
Lawal also criticised internal party primaries and consensus arrangements, describing them as inconsistent and often lacking transparency.
He said democratic credibility is undermined when electoral processes are manipulated or replaced with informal consensus decisions.
He stated: “We have issues with electoral processes, but what is important is that we will never be part of anything that will truncate democracy in Nigeria. We will continue to work within the ambit of the law. You see people counting delegates from one to ten to fifteen to three thousand at once, and then we are expected to be called leaders. We have seen reports of consensus candidacies where there was no election.”
He insisted that credible party structures are essential for sustaining democracy and public trust.
ATIKU, ADC PRIMARY DISPUTES AND INTERNAL BREAKDOWN
Lawal further alleged that internal struggles within the ADC were driven by contestations over candidacy and mistrust among political actors, including tensions around former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s influence within coalition discussions.
He stated that ambition, rather than ideology, shaped decisions within the coalition, arguing that once candidacy appeared uncertain, some actors began to reposition themselves politically.
Babachir David Lawal also reflected on possible opposition figures and leadership alternatives ahead of the 2027 elections, where he evaluated several political actors including Peter Obi, Rotimi Amaechi, and Mohammad Hayatu-Deen.
He said his analysis of presidential options within the opposition space was based strictly on capacity, competence, and perceived national acceptance, insisting that leadership selection must go beyond political sentiment.
On Rotimi Amaechi, Lawal expressed doubts about his electoral strength, suggesting that although he is a notable southern political figure, he may not have the broad national appeal required to win a presidential contest.
On Peter Obi, he recalled the uncertainty surrounding his position within coalition negotiations, stating that discussions around Obi’s participation were often unstable and politically sensitive.
He said: “Then the story started floating around that Peter Obi was not an enthusiastic member of the coalition. And we needed to bend over backwards to give him assurance that he would be treated fairly, like any other ambitious person within the coalition.”
He also noted that Obi’s role within coalition arrangements remained fluid at different stages of discussions, reflecting wider instability within opposition alignment structures.
On Mohammad Hayatu-Deen, Lawal described him as the most competent among the aspirants he considered, particularly in terms of economic and corporate experience.
He said: “Now this new man, Hayatdeen, he just joined our party yesterday, so to say. And on my own, on basis of merit, on basis of competence, capabilities, Hayatudeen tops them all, because he’s a very well-rounded corporate guru.”
He further added that:
“If we go the North way, Hayatudeen would have been the preferred candidate for me, on national issues, better, and so on and so forth.”
LAWAL QUESTIONS ATIKU’S POLITICAL BASE, ALLEGES LACK OF YORUBA PRESENCE IN HIS ENTOURAGE
Babachir David Lawal also extended his criticism to the composition of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s political support base and entourage, arguing that leadership credibility is reflected not only in policies but also in the diversity of political associations and alliances surrounding a candidate.
He claimed that the structure of Atiku’s political network does not reflect national inclusion, insisting that Nigerians must interrogate the composition of those who surround individuals seeking the highest office in the country.
Lawal said such patterns reveal deeper questions about unity and representation in national politics, arguing that political leadership should reflect broad-based acceptance across ethnic and regional lines.
In his words, he stated: “He goes around carrying one or two Igbos with the red caps, who in any case are at once sabotaging their own brother, Peter Obi’s chance of becoming president. They go around, they follow Atiku up and down because they are carrying his bags left, right and center. And then when we count the Christians around Atiku, they count only the Igbos. You don’t see any Yoruba man in this entourage. You don’t see any Hausa man. You don’t see any Ibibo, only a few Igbos and the Fulani people.”
Lawal argued that leadership scrutiny should go beyond campaign promises and include a closer look at the social and political networks candidates maintain, as these often reflect governance style and inclusivity.
He maintained that Nigerians must interrogate not just what politicians say, but also the structure of the alliances that support them.
OBASANJO, ATIKU AND THE QUESTION OF BROKEN POLITICAL TRUST
Lawal also revisited the long-standing political tension between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Atiku Abubakar, framing it as a foundational example of what he described as trust deficit in Nigeria’s elite politics. He argued that the fallout between both men reflected deeper issues around power struggle, corruption allegations, and institutional control during their time in government.
He suggested that the public record of their disagreement continues to shape perceptions of Atiku’s political journey, especially among Nigerians who recall the controversies that trailed their administration. According to him, the Obasanjo-era disputes were not merely personal but tied to questions of governance integrity and accountability.
Lawal stated: “Obasanjo investigated him over and over. His excuse was that he has immunity as the vice president, and he cannot be prosecuted. It is too long to go into details. It was just designed by people like Atiku who think it is their birthright to be president and any other person from a smaller tribe especially a Christian has no business getting to that position. They got me out and handed the matter to EFCC.”
He further claimed that his own experience within government exposed him to similar political dynamics, insisting that institutional processes were sometimes influenced by power struggles rather than objective governance decisions. He maintained that such patterns were part of what shaped his distrust of elite political coalitions.
Lawal added that the EFCC investigation involving him was, in his view, also politically influenced by broader struggles within the ruling structure at the time. He insisted that his removal from office was linked to internal political calculations rather than purely administrative concerns.
He said the Obasanjo–Atiku fallout, in his interpretation, reflected how deeply personal ambition can override institutional stability, arguing that this history remains relevant when evaluating contemporary political actors.
FAMILY STRUCTURE AND POLITICAL DYNASTY CONCERNS
Lawal also raised concerns about political family structures in Nigeria, using Atiku Abubakar’s household as a reference point while drawing comparisons with emerging political dynasties.
He questioned the implications of political inheritance and family influence in governance, arguing that such patterns may shape how power is exercised if left unchecked.
In his words: “He has 25 adult grown up children. And I know 99% of them are in the business sector. And of course, they are waiting on their father to take over government, so they become other Seyi Tinubu. What is personal there? Tell me. No, don’t tell me. Tell me, what is this personal there? For someone who wants to be president. These are the characters we should query. Whoever who says he wants to be president, we should query. We should call query personal character. We should call query his public character.”
He added that political entourages and family presence around candidates often reflect how power could be distributed in office, insisting that Nigerians must examine these structures critically before elections.
EFCC CASE AND DEFENCE OF PUBLIC RECORD
Responding to references to his past public service, particularly corruption allegations during his tenure as SGF, Lawal defended himself, insisting he was cleared after investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
He said: “EFCC took over the case, investigated… Eventually, my lawyers filed a no objection… And the judge dismissed the case on a no-case submission basis. No case. I didn’t have to defend anything. There was nothing to defend. It was fabrication.”
He maintained that the case was politically motivated and aimed at removing him from office.
FINAL POSITION ON ATIKU AND NATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Lawal reiterated his position that Atiku Abubakar’s leadership style raises concerns about empathy, inclusiveness, and national unity, insisting that leadership must be evaluated through action rather than rhetoric.
He argued that Nigeria’s future depends on selecting leaders capable of uniting the country while addressing insecurity and economic hardship effectively.
He maintained that failure to prioritise competence and emotional engagement in leadership selection would continue to weaken governance outcomes and public trust in democratic institutions.
