Drug Trafficking Attracts Death Penalty In China, Atiku Tells Tinubu After Presidency’s Comparison

Former Vice President of Nigeria and Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has said the Presidency’s decision to invoke China in its criticism of him has backfired, arguing that the comparison has instead exposed President Bola Tinubu to greater public scrutiny because of China’s strict stance on drug-related offences and corruption.

The position was contained in a statement issued on Saturday, July 25, 2026, by Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, who signed and released the statement on behalf of the former vice president.

Atiku described the Presidency’s attempt to compare his record to China’s legal standards as “a monumental own goal,” saying it was ironic that while the government had been “busy parading the United States Government’s routine reply to its diplomatic correspondence as though it were a love letter, a trophy and a certificate of innocence rolled into one,” its spokesman had “carelessly introduced China into a conversation where the comparison immediately rebounds against his own principal.”

“It takes a peculiar kind of unintelligence for a spokesman to set out to drag an opponent before a hypothetical Chinese court, only to end up dragging his own principal into the dock.

“Perhaps the spokesman did not realise that the maximum penalty under Chinese law for the most serious drug trafficking offences is death. Having chosen China as his benchmark, he unwittingly invited Nigerians to examine the very standard he thought would embarrass Atiku Abubakar,” the statement read.

Atiku maintained that his personal record remained unblemished, insisting that there had never been any criminal conviction or indictment against him.

“The facts are neither complicated nor disputable. Atiku Abubakar has never been indicted or convicted by any court in Nigeria or anywhere else in the world for corruption, narcotics offences or, indeed, any criminal offence whatsoever. That is an incontrovertible matter of public record,” he said.

He argued that if the Presidency wished to make China the benchmark for accountability, Nigerians were equally entitled to assess the allegations that have trailed President Tinubu.

“If, however, the Presidency insists that China is now the standard by which public accountability should be measured, Nigerians are equally entitled to ask what the Chinese authorities would have done in a case involving $460,000 forfeited to the United States Government in a civil forfeiture proceeding concerning funds alleged to be connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

“China is renowned for its uncompromising approach to narcotics-related offences and public accountability. It is not a jurisdiction where the forfeiture of suspicious proceeds ordinarily marks the end of official scrutiny. More often than not, that is where scrutiny begins,” he stated.

The former vice president further urged the Tinubu administration to examine China’s approach to corruption and abuse of office before citing the country in political arguments.

“And since the Presidency has elected to make China the reference point, let us go a step further. The Tinubu administration should acquaint itself with the Chinese criminal justice system’s uncompromising treatment of corruption, abuse of public office and the misappropriation of state resources.

“Not in China would a President sign into law a national budget immersed in scandals, padding and duplicitous appropriations. Not in China would a President look the other way while a senior presidential aide faces grave allegations of creating a fake government agency. Not in China would a government campaign on Renewed Hope only to deliver renewed hardship to its citizens. These are precisely the reasons the Presidency should have been more circumspect before invoking China,” he said.

According to Atiku, the Presidency’s argument had ultimately collapsed because of the standard it chose to invoke.

“That is precisely why the Presidency’s argument has collapsed under the weight of its own contradiction. By invoking China, its spokesman has unwittingly invited Nigerians to apply the very standard he thought would embarrass Atiku Abubakar.

“Indeed, President Tinubu may wish to reflect on whether a spokesman who so casually drags his own principal into such an avoidable comparison has truly served his interests. A media adviser is employed to protect his principal from political landmines, not to march him straight into one,” he added.

The former vice president also faulted the Presidency’s reliance on the United States Government’s response to diplomatic correspondence, insisting that it should not be interpreted as a judicial clearance.

“The Presidency should also stop brandishing the United States Government’s reply to its diplomatic correspondence as though it were a judicial acquittal. Diplomatic correspondence between sovereign governments is routine. It is neither a judgment of a court, nor a declaration of innocence, nor an instrument for rewriting history,” the statement said.

He stressed that governments could not selectively apply standards of accountability.

“The lesson here is simple. Those who invoke China must be prepared to accept the Chinese standard—not selectively, not rhetorically, but completely. Accountability is not a buffet from which governments choose only the dishes they find palatable.”

Atiku further urged the Tinubu administration to focus on addressing Nigeria’s pressing challenges instead of engaging in political distractions.

“The Tinubu administration would do better to devote its dwindling political capital to confronting the economic hardship, rising hunger, insecurity and institutional decline afflicting Nigerians instead of manufacturing diversions that collapse at the slightest contact with the facts,” he said.

He concluded by urging the Presidency to improve the quality of its public communication, noting that while propaganda might dominate the news cycle temporarily, “facts ultimately prevail.”