Presidency Rebukes Atiku Over Military Rule Comparison, Defends Tinubu’s Democratic Record

The Presidency on Wednesday in Abuja pushed back against comments by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar likening the administration of President Bola Tinubu to military rule, describing the remarks as historically misleading and an affront to Nigeria’s democratic experience, following Atiku’s criticism made a day earlier at a public book presentation.

Atiku, speaking on Tuesday at the unveiling of The Loyalist, a book authored by former minister and African Democratic Congress (ADC) chieftain Bolaji Abdullahi, had accused the Tinubu-led All Progressives Congress (APC) government of inflicting unprecedented damage on the country.

“Not even the military dictatorships before 1999 damaged our national life and consciousness in the way this administration has done,” Atiku had remarked.

Reacting via his verified X handle, the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Communication, Sunday Dare, rejected the comparison, arguing that it trivialises the brutality associated with past military regimes.

“For a man who once occupied the office of Vice President under a constitutional democracy, Atiku Abubakar’s persistent inability, or refusal, to distinguish between democratic governance and military dictatorship is no longer ironic; it is alarming,” Dare wrote.

Dare said the former vice-president’s comments went beyond political criticism, insisting they amounted to a calculated attempt to rewrite history.

He accused Atiku of downplaying the repression Nigerians endured under military decrees, including imprisonment, exile and loss of life, and warned that such narratives undermine the country’s democratic journey.

At the book presentation, Atiku had framed his criticism within a broader political argument, portraying the ADC as a rallying point for disparate political actors seeking to “rescue” Nigeria from what he described as a deepening governance crisis.

He called on citizens to support the emergence of a credible alternative, noting that several individuals at the event were among the architects of the APC who later became disillusioned with its performance in office.

The Presidency countered this position by pointing to Atiku’s continued exercise of civil liberties as evidence of democratic rule.

Dare noted that the former vice-president operates freely within the country, holds political meetings, grants interviews and openly criticises the government without restriction.

“The absurdity of Atiku’s ‘dictatorship’ narrative collapses under minimal scrutiny… For Atiku to sit comfortably in Abuja, shielded by democratic rights, while romanticising the ‘efficiency’ of military rule is not dissent; it is cognitive dissonance bordering on historical vandalism,” Dare wrote.

He further characterised Atiku’s rhetoric as damaging to national discourse, describing it as reflective of personal political frustration rather than a substantive assessment of governance, and urged public figures to exercise restraint when invoking Nigeria’s authoritarian past.