The Presidency has officially thrown its weight behind the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as the anti-graft agency stepped up a high-profile manhunt for Abdullahi Bashir Haske, a businessman described in official notices as both an entrepreneur and the son-in-law of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
The EFCC says Haske is wanted in connection with allegations of criminal conspiracy and money-laundering. His name and photograph were placed on the commission’s wanted list after he allegedly breached the terms of administrative bail and failed to honour repeated invitations.
This is the kind of story that will not die quietly. It jabs at three charged seams of contemporary Nigerian life: the EFCC’s use of public “wanted” lists, the persistent accusation that state institutions are weaponised for politics, and the opaque nexus between private business interests and state contracts — particularly in the oil sector.
Below we unpack what happened, why it matters, the legal and institutional flashpoints it creates, and what the likely short-term fallout will be for both the Tinubu presidency and the opposition.
What the EFCC says — and what it has done
On 21 August 2025 the EFCC, through its Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale, issued a public notice declaring Abdullahi Bashir Haske wanted for an “alleged case of criminal conspiracy and money laundering”.
The notice listed his age (38) and his last known Lagos addresses, Mosley Road, Ikoyi and Idejo Street, Victoria Island, and urged members of the public to submit tips to EFCC offices nationwide.
The commission says Haske had been under investigation for months and that he breached administrative-bail conditions by disappearing after being released.
Multiple outlets reporting the notice emphasise that the EFCC claims the action was forced by Haske’s alleged failure to comply with the terms of his bail and his avoiding of invitations from investigators.
The EFCC has, according to several reports, requested the public’s assistance and published contact lines for tips.
The Presidency: law, order, and institutional cover
In swift response, the Presidency, via Special Adviser on Media and Communication Sunday Dare, rejected suggestions of political persecution and publicly backed the EFCC’s exercise of its statutory mandate, insisting that “no one is above the law” and pledging support for institutions that “act without fear or favour”.
The Presidency framed the episode as proof of the administration’s commitment to strengthening the rule of law, contrasting it rhetorically with past governments accused of instrumentising state agencies.
That public endorsement is politically significant. When the executive vocally supports an investigation that touches a leading opposition politician’s inner circle, the appearance of impartiality or bias becomes the central battlefield for public opinion, and for litigators.
Atiku camp: accusations of victimisation
Unsurprisingly, Atiku’s camp rejects any suggestion that this is a legitimate criminal investigation divorced from politics.
Paul Ibe, Atiku’s media aide, told Saturday PUNCH that the family fears the exercise could be “victimisation” because of Haske’s relationship to the former Vice-President, accusing the Tinubu administration of having “shown the capacity to use the instrument of the state to harass and intimidate opposition”.
That charge is familiar. Opposition parties and civil society groups have long cautioned that anti-corruption tools can be misapplied to weaker political actors, and when the accused is a close relative of a high-profile politician the charge lands quickly in the court of public sentiment.
Still, such claims will not, in themselves, make the alleged offences go away; they merely frame the inquiry’s political optics.
The legal counterpunch — lawyers say EFCC jumped the gun
Haske’s lawyers have already mounted a legal challenge and described the EFCC’s public declaration as procedurally flawed.
Defence counsel argue that there is a pending motion in the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging an arrest warrant obtained by the commission, and say the public notice is “a blatant act of illegality and an abuse of process”.
Some legal commentators point to a body of recent case law in which courts have rebuked the EFCC for unlawfully publishing names and photographs of suspects, including a notable 2024 ruling that fined the commission for declaring a person wanted without following proper procedure.
This is not an academic quibble. Nigerian courts have previously ordered sanctions against the commission and declared public “wanted” lists unlawful when published without following statutory safeguards.
The defence’s motion will test whether the EFCC exhausted judicial remedies before acting publicly, and will be watched closely by both civil-liberties advocates and political operatives.
The money trail: AA & R, NNPC links and asset freezes
Press reports link Haske’s company, AA & R Investment Group, said to have interests in energy, agribusiness, logistics and ICT, to alleged multimillion-dollar transfers involving the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).
Some outlets claim the EFCC has taken steps against bank accounts associated with the businessman, including reporting a freeze on sizeable dollar holdings; other claims remain unconfirmed by the EFCC’s public materials.
The suggestion of NNPCL linkages, if proven, would take the probe into the heart of Nigeria’s most lucrative state sector and raise questions about procurement and patronage.
At present the reporting on frozen assets and the scale of the alleged transfers is uneven across outlets; responsible investigative practice therefore requires patience before publishing definitive financial totals.
That said, allegations that link private firms and state purchasing in the oil complex have a long and well-documented history in Nigeria; which is why these claims will be so politically toxic if corroborated.
Institutional politics and precedent: why this matters beyond personalities
Two structural questions hang over this episode. First: will the EFCC be able to substantiate the allegations in a manner that survives judicial scrutiny?
Second: will the Presidency’s backing harden perceptions that the anti-graft drive is selectively applied?
There is precedent for courts chastising the EFCC when it publicly brands people as wanted without sufficient judicial process — a rule that protects suspects’ fundamental rights but also slows down enforcement.
That precedent will animates both the defence’s courtroom strategy and the media narrative.
Moreover, the political calculus is obvious: for the Tinubu government, demonstrating that its agencies can act decisively against powerful networks is a political and governance feather in the cap.
For the opposition, the case will be a rallying cry about the weaponisation of state power.
The resulting polarisation will make legal fact-finding harder and public deliberation noisier — precisely the environment in which rule-of-law claims become muddled with partisan narratives.
What to watch next
Court filings and orders — Does the Federal High Court entertain or dismiss the defence’s motion seeking to restrain the EFCC’s actions? A ruling against the commission would not only complicate the Haske prosecution but could set a new constraint on how EFCC handles “wanted” declarations.
Financial forensics — Will the EFCC or court disclose the documentary trail (bank records, contracts and wire transfers) that allegedly connect Haske or AA & R to questionable NNPCL transactions? Confirmed paper trails would radically change the stakes.
International cooperation — If the EFCC believes Haske fled the country, will it pursue INTERPOL channels? Some outlets report reluctance at that level unless strict political-neutrality tests are satisfied; the outcome will determine whether this becomes a truly transnational hunt.
Bottom line
This case crystallises an old Nigerian dilemma: how to pursue high-value corruption cases quickly and visibly while protecting procedural rights and avoiding the appearance, or reality, of political targeting.
The EFCC has the public backing of the presidency; Atiku’s camp and Haske’s lawyers insist on victimisation and abuse of process. The courts will now be the arbiter of that contest, and their decisions will shape not only the fate of one man and his company, but also the credibility of anti-corruption instruments in Nigeria’s fractious public life.
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
