Tigran Gambaryan’s recent accusations against Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, are as reckless as they are unsubstantiated. If the former Binance executive hoped to sway public opinion by casting himself as a victim of corruption, he has sorely miscalculated. His claims raise more questions than answers—questions that expose the contradictions and convenient omissions in his narrative.
First, if there was any truth to his allegation that Nigerian officials, including Ribadu, solicited bribes from Binance, why did his lawyers not present this claim in court during his trial? The judicial process exists for precisely this reason—to examine claims and counterclaims under the scrutiny of evidence. If such a damning accusation had any basis, surely his legal team would have seized the opportunity to put it on record where it matters most. Instead, he waited until after his release to peddle his claims on social media.
Second, Gambaryan insists that Binance was unfairly targeted and that he was wrongfully detained. If this is true, why did his colleague, Nadeem Anjarwalla, flee from lawful custody? The decision to escape rather than defend oneself in an open court is an implicit admission of guilt. If Binance’s dealings in Nigeria were legitimate, Anjarwalla would have had no reason to run. His escape raises serious doubts about the innocence Gambaryan claims.
Third, could it be that Gambaryan is simply bitter because the Nigerian government ended Binance’s reign of financial manipulation in the country? Nigeria had become a playground for illicit transactions facilitated through Binance, activities that would have been impossible in the United States or other developed economies. His frustration appears to stem not from injustice but from the disruption of an operation that exploited regulatory loopholes in an emerging market.
Fourth, would Gambaryan be honest enough to admit that his release had little to do with proving his innocence and everything to do with diplomatic pressure from the Biden administration? It is no secret that international politics often intervenes in high-profile cases involving foreign nationals. His newfound courage to accuse Nigerian officials only emerged after his return to the U.S.—a sign that he is more interested in salvaging his own image than in exposing genuine wrongdoing.
Fifth, before attempting to smear Ribadu, did Gambaryan bother to research the many documented cases where the NSA has rejected bribes, including the infamous $15 million offered by James Ibori during his tenure as EFCC chairman? To suggest that he would now, at the peak of his career, compromise that reputation for a bribe defies both logic and history.
Sixth, rather than defending Binance’s financial operations in Nigeria, he has chosen to shift the conversation by making baseless allegations against those who held him accountable.
Finally, why is Gambaryan silent on Binance’s own track record of infractions, fines, and bans in multiple countries? If Nigeria’s actions against Binance were truly unjustified, why have regulators in the U.S., Europe, and Asia taken similar stances? His attempt to paint Binance as a victim ignores the reality that the company has been embroiled in financial crimes across the world.
In the end, Gambaryan’s allegations do not hold up under scrutiny. He has failed to provide evidence, ignored inconvenient facts, and relied on public sentiment rather than legal argument. Nigeria is right to demand accountability from foreign companies operating within its borders.
– Gata, a media practitioner and public affairs analyst writes from Abuja
