Former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, has intensified his criticism of former Vice President , accusing him of failing to publicly condemn banditry and violent attacks across the country while questioning his suitability for the presidency.
In a lengthy statement titled “Kachalla 2,” Lawal defended himself against criticisms that followed an earlier post in which he referred to Atiku as “Kachalla,” a title commonly associated with bandit leaders in parts of northern Nigeria.
The former SGF said he had come under sustained attacks, insults and threats from supporters of Atiku and members of the Fulani community since publishing his earlier remarks. According to him, many of his critics focused on his past removal from office over the controversial “grass-cutting” scandal rather than addressing the substance of his arguments against Atiku.
Lawal maintained that his 2017 removal as SGF was politically motivated and orchestrated by powerful interests who were uncomfortable with his close relationship with former President . He claimed that efforts to remove him involved lawmakers, members of the executive branch and media allies who allegedly worked together to force him out of office.
Recounting the controversy, Lawal argued that subsequent investigations and court proceedings cleared him of wrongdoing. He noted that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecuted the case and called several witnesses, none of whom implicated him in any criminal conduct.
He further insisted that the controversial contract at the centre of the scandal involved consultancy services worth N7.2 million connected to the clearing of the Komadugu-Yobe River, a project designed to restore water flow, support agriculture and fishing activities, and improve livelihoods in communities around the Lake Chad basin.
However, it was Lawal’s fresh attack on Atiku that dominated his statement.
The former SGF questioned why Atiku had allegedly remained silent on attacks by bandits and armed groups operating across northern Nigeria and other parts of the country. He asked why the former vice president had not publicly sympathised with victims of attacks carried out by notorious bandit leaders or consistently condemned violent incidents affecting various ethnic and religious communities.
Lawal argued that Nigerians have a right to scrutinise the character, leadership qualities and public positions of anyone seeking the nation’s highest office. According to him, concerns about insecurity and the response of political leaders to violence should form part of that assessment.
He also alleged that an Atiku presidency could embolden criminal elements responsible for widespread insecurity, though he did not provide evidence to support the claim.
Beyond security concerns, Lawal questioned Atiku’s business credentials, claiming that some enterprises previously associated with the former vice president had either been leased out, divested from or were experiencing operational challenges.
The former SGF concluded by urging opposition figures to consider alternative presidential candidates, insisting that he would continue to challenge Atiku’s presidential ambition despite criticism from the former vice president’s supporters.
Atiku and his representatives had not responded publicly to Lawal’s latest remarks as of the time of filing this report.