Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has launched a sharp attack on President Bola Tinubu. He accused the administration of turning Nigeria’s security apparatus into a political weapon. This move pushes the country towards authoritarian rule.
The latest controversy centres on the Department of State Services. Its actions concern properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami. Atiku claims this dispute exposes a wider assault on opposition politics ahead of the 2027 elections.
Atiku’s media office said the sealing of Malami-linked properties was not merely a law-enforcement matter. It is part of a pattern of intimidation aimed at weakening dissent.
In the words attributed to him, “This is not governance. This is intimidation,” and “This is how democracies die.”
His argument is that public confidence begins to collapse. This happens when security agencies appear to act in ways that track political rivalries.
The timing matters. Malami is already facing intense legal and investigative pressure. In January, a Federal High Court ordered the interim forfeiture of 57 properties. These properties are allegedly linked to him and two of his sons. The EFCC says the assets were worth about N213.2 billion.
Separate reports also show that he and his family have faced money laundering proceedings. The DSS has filed terrorism-financing and firearms-related charges against him and his son.
Malami has denied wrongdoing and has challenged aspects of the state’s actions in court.
That is why Atiku’s intervention has landed with such force. He is not speaking in isolation. Over the past several months, he has repeatedly warned about the Tinubu administration. It is weakening Nigeria’s multiparty democracy. It is also normalising coercion in politics.
In January, he accused the government of deforming the system. They helped turn it into a de facto one-party order. This was achieved through “coercion, intimidation, and state capture”.
He has now folded the Malami episode into that same narrative of shrinking democratic space.
The broader opposition mood is also important. In July 2025, Nigeria’s opposition leaders gave their formal support to a new coalition. This coalition is under the African Democratic Congress and includes Atiku and Peter Obi. They said the alliance was meant to stop Nigeria from “becoming a one-party state”.
AP reported that the coalition was formed amid fears of defections to the ruling party. They worried that the use of state power could further weaken competition before 2027. That context gives Atiku’s latest comments a strategic as well as emotional edge.
The presidency, however, has pushed back hard. On February 27, a statement was issued from the State House. Bayo Onanuga dismissed the opposition’s complaints as “reckless, spurious allegations.” He also referred to them as “constant lamentation and unwarranted outrage.”
The presidency insisted that Nigeria remains a multiparty democracy. It rejected claims that Tinubu wants to create a one-party state. It also argued that the new Electoral Act was designed to improve the credibility of elections rather than undermine them.
That response does not settle the political question. It merely sharpens it. In democracies, the legality of a security action is one matter. The public perception of that action is another.
When an opposition figure sees a pattern, a government must do more than recite procedure. It must also persuade the public that enforcement is even-handed.
In Malami’s case, the government can point to active court proceedings and asset-forfeiture processes. Critics, meanwhile, can point to the optics of repeated pressure on prominent opposition-leaning figures. This is happening at a moment when the 2027 race is already taking shape.
The political danger is significant. Every new enforcement action involving a high-profile former official will now be interpreted through the lens of 2027.
Atiku is trying to create that exact environment. This is because it serves his larger argument. Tinubu is not merely governing but also reorganising the terrain of contestation.
The presidency, by contrast, is trying to present the opposition as noisy, disunited and overreacting to reforms. Both sides are fighting not only for power, but for the public meaning of power itself.
There is also a historical warning embedded in Atiku’s language. He compares the present climate to authoritarian drift and one-party capture. He deliberately evokes Nigeria’s darker political memories. State institutions were often seen as instruments of personal or factional control.
Whether that comparison is fair is open to dispute. The opposition is increasingly organising around the claim that the Tinubu presidency is making the state less neutral. They argue it is more partisan, while the government insists the reverse is true.
For now, the Malami episode has become more than a legal dispute over property and investigation. It is a political symbol. To Atiku and his allies, it is evidence of intimidation. To the presidency, it is proof that accountability applies to everyone.
The real test will be whether Nigeria’s institutions can convince the public. They need to show that they are acting under law. They must not be acting under political instruction. If they fail, the 2027 election season may begin long before ballots are printed, and it may begin under a cloud of distrust.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
