The African Democratic Congress Presidential Campaign Council (ADC-PCC) has renewed its criticism of the All Progressives Congress (APC) over allegations that some ministers paid substantial sums to secure appointments in President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration.
The council said remarks attributed to Alwan Hassan, a spokesperson associated with Tinubu’s political campaign, raised serious questions about the integrity of ministerial appointments and warranted a clear explanation from the Presidency.
The latest reaction followed comments by APC National Publicity Secretary Felix Morka, who sought to clarify the controversy by arguing that Hassan’s remarks had been taken out of context and referred to previous administrations rather than the current government.
In a statement issued by the ADC-PCC Director of Media and Publicity, Kola Ologbondiyan, the opposition campaign council rejected the attempt to dismiss the matter and maintained that the allegations required a substantive response.
The controversy has intensified political exchanges between the ruling party and opposition figures at a time when Nigerians continue to face economic pressures and questions about accountability in public office.
ADC Demands Clarification
Ologbondiyan said the remarks attributed to Hassan should not be brushed aside through political explanations, arguing that the public deserved to know whether the allegations had any basis.
The council challenged the APC to address the substance of the claims rather than focus solely on disputing their interpretation.
The allegations have centred on suggestions that some individuals paid large sums of money to secure ministerial appointments and subsequently sought to recover their financial outlays.
However, the claims have not established that any particular minister paid for an appointment, and the individuals allegedly involved have not been identified in the material provided.
The ADC-PCC argued that allegations involving the possible commercialisation of public appointments should be treated as a matter of public accountability rather than partisan disagreement.
It called for greater transparency concerning the process through which ministers were selected and the standards used to determine their suitability for public office.
APC Rejects Interpretation of Remarks
Morka, the APC’s National Publicity Secretary, maintained that Hassan’s comments had been misinterpreted.
According to the party’s position, the remarks concerned previous administrations rather than ministers serving under Tinubu.
The clarification followed public reactions to Hassan’s comments, which generated questions about whether payments had been made in connection with ministerial appointments.
The dispute has since developed into a broader political exchange over the credibility of the government’s appointment process and the responsibility of public officials to clarify potentially damaging allegations.
While the APC has disputed the interpretation of Hassan’s remarks, the ADC-PCC insists that the controversy should be addressed through clear explanations rather than political rebuttals alone.
Accountability Debate Deepens
The dispute has renewed attention on the standards expected of those appointed to public office, particularly at a time when the government is asking Nigerians to endure economic reforms and difficult living conditions.
Ministerial appointments are public responsibilities, and allegations that financial considerations influenced the selection process raise questions about transparency, merit and the possible misuse of political influence.
Nevertheless, allegations should not be treated as established facts without supporting evidence.
A conclusive determination of whether any payments occurred would require credible evidence identifying the individuals involved, the nature of the alleged transactions and any connection between those transactions and ministerial appointments.
The ADC-PCC has continued to press for answers, while the APC maintains that Hassan’s remarks were taken out of context.
The Presidency’s response to the specific questions raised by the opposition, together with any independently established evidence, will be important in determining the substance of the controversy.