APC national chairman, Adamu reportedly resigned as several party chieftains withdrew their support for him
Recall that Adamu, the national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), has been widely reported to have resigned from his position.
Senator Adamu reportedly resigned on Sunday, July 16 over allegations of inability to account for the N32bn proceeds from nomination forms sold by the party run up to the last general elections.
An NWC member divulged: “Only N7 billion is left in the account as we speak. “Adamu and Omisore claimed the account has been audited, but we are not aware of when the auditors were appointed. How can NWC not be aware of the appointment?
It is part of our responsibilities to appoint auditors.” Another party insider added: “By the APC constitution, the proceeds were supposed to be shared with the zonal, state and ward levels of the party, and they were not in the know. So there was no way they were going to support him.”
In the run-up to the presidential convention of the party on June 8, 2022, Adamu had thrown his weight behind the then-President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan.
He reportedly presented Lawan to former President Muhammadu Buhari as the party’s consensus candidate, but his move to get Buhari’s support was truncated by the APC governors who allegedly informed the President that they were not involved in Adamu’s plot against Tinubu, the former Lagos State governor.
Last week, Adamu admitted in an interview on Arise Television that he didn’t support Tinubu’s ambition, pointing out that he had the right to support whoever he wanted.
He also dismissed the rumoured differences between him and the president as unfounded. He stated that he was also misrepresented about his position on the recently elected principal officers of the National Assembly, saying that what the APC had issues with was the manner the communication was handled by the lawmakers.
Adamu had claimed ignorance of the emergence of the principal officers, saying he was not carried along in the process by the lawmakers.
Responding to a question on his plot to prevent Tinubu from emerging as the candidate of the party, he stated, “I think that’s a soft selling point for you media people. It is true that at the time that I made a presentation to the National Working Committee, the name of Senator Ahmed Lawan was thrown up.
“That was before the convention. So many things took place between then and the actual date of the convention and you saw what culminated in the convention unanimously. I was there and I led the convention of the party.
“A day after the convention, I took the entire working committee to his (Tinubu’s) house in Asokoro and assured him of our support and said we would stand shoulder to shoulder with him and ensure that the mandate was sold properly to the people of Nigeria. We won the election. Instead of being praised, we are vilified,” he said.
He stated that it wasn’t the time for vilification, expressing the view that since he led the party to success, he should be commended.
Apart from this, Adamu had also been involved in a running battle with the North-West National Vice Chairman of the party, Salihu Lukman, who accused the party chair of running the APC like an army barrack without recourse to the NWC.
The Kaduna politician expressed concerns that the day-to-day administration of the secretariat and key decisions that involve party activities were taken at the discretion of the national chairman.
Lukman revealed in a statement issued in Abuja on Friday titled ‘Rebuilding the APC to Reform Nigerian Politics: Task Before President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu,’ issued on June 16.
But Adamu in defence said those who had issues against him had always had the opportunity to air their views at their national meetings, explaining that Lukman had always attended those meetings.
He stated that the decision of Lukman to take the party to court was a grave offence even though he later signed a deal that his case had been withdrawn from the court and apologised for his misdemeanour.
Adamu said he would be will willing to disagree with the president on any matter because there was freedom of speech in the country, explaining that the so-called altercation with the president remained a media creation.
