₦10 Billion Ebola Fund Storm! APC Says Tinubu’s Money Remains Untouched As Atiku Demands Answers

By Passman Akpos

ABUJA —The All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council has responded sharply to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar over his demand for accountability concerning the reported ₦10 billion approved by President Bola Tinubu for Ebola preparedness, insisting that the emergency fund remains untouched while relevant health agencies have relied on other available resources.

In a statement issued in Abuja on Thursday, October 22, and signed by Dele Alake, spokesperson for the APC Presidential Campaign Council, the ruling party’s campaign organisation accused Atiku of politicising a public health concern and using language it described as disrespectful to the office of the President.

The statement followed Atiku’s criticism of the Federal Government’s handling of a reported Ebola case in Abuja, the transparency of emergency funding and concerns about the timing of the public announcement.

Atiku had demanded a detailed account of the ₦10 billion reportedly approved for Ebola preparedness, questioning how much had been released, how the money had been utilised and whether frontline health workers had received adequate protection.

However, the APC campaign council has now offered a different account of the funding, arguing that the money approved in June had not been spent and that the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC), the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) and other surveillance agencies had deployed existing resources to monitor the situation.

The conflicting positions have placed the management of the reported health emergency, the transparency of public spending and the responsibilities of political actors under renewed public scrutiny.

APC REJECTS ‘BOLA-EBOLA’ RHYME

Reacting to Atiku’s earlier statement, the APC Presidential Campaign Council criticised the former vice president for linking President Tinubu’s first name with Ebola.

The council argued that the wordplay risked turning a serious public health concern into an opportunity to ridicule the President rather than promote constructive engagement on the country’s preparedness.

According to the statement, the opposition should focus on supporting health authorities and demanding accountability through verifiable facts instead of using what the ruling party described as political attacks.

The council maintained that the Ebola situation required cooperation among the government, opposition parties, medical professionals and the public.

It also accused Atiku’s camp of making speculative allegations about the government’s intentions without presenting evidence to substantiate them.

Atiku’s intervention, however, had focused on more than the controversial headline. His statement raised questions about emergency expenditure, the timeline of the reported case, contact tracing, protection for healthcare workers and the possibility of public health measures affecting political gatherings.

Those issues remain distinguishable from the political dispute over the language used by the former vice president.

₦10 BILLION FUND: APC SAYS MONEY REMAINS UNTOUCHED

The most significant financial claim in the APC response concerns the ₦10 billion reportedly approved by President Tinubu for Ebola emergency preparedness in June.

According to Alake, the money remains untouched, while the NCDC, FAAN and other surveillance agencies have used other available resources to carry out their responsibilities.

The council praised the agencies for maintaining surveillance at entry points and said their monitoring network helped alert the government to the reported case and initiate contact tracing involving 44 contacts.

If independently verified, the claim that the ₦10 billion remains unspent would be an important development in the debate over the management of the emergency funding.

However, the statement did not provide supporting financial documents detailing the status of the appropriation or approval, whether any funds had been released, the account in which the money was held or the specific resources used by the agencies.

It is therefore important to distinguish the APC council’s assertion from independently verified financial records.

The distinction also raises a question central to public accountability: if the emergency fund remains untouched, what resources were deployed to finance the response, and what arrangements exist to ensure that the approved money can be accessed when required?

The Federal Government could help settle the debate by publishing the relevant approval documents, the status of the funds and a breakdown of expenditure incurred by the agencies involved.

APC EXPLAINS WHY THE PATIENT WAS NOT DETECTED AT THE AIRPORT

The ruling party’s campaign council also challenged Atiku’s interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the reported Ebola case.

According to the APC statement, the incubation period for Ebola ranges from two to 21 days, with symptoms typically appearing eight to 10 days after exposure.

The council argued that an infected person does not transmit Ebola to others before developing symptoms and maintained that this explains why the traveller from Uganda was not detected on arrival at the Abuja airport.

It said the patient subsequently reported to a hospital, where several tests reportedly established the infection.

The explanation raises an important public health distinction between screening travellers for visible symptoms and monitoring people who may develop symptoms after arrival.

Airport screening cannot necessarily identify every infected traveller, particularly when an individual has not yet developed symptoms.

Nevertheless, the precise circumstances of the reported case, including the patient’s travel history, symptom onset, initial medical presentation, testing and notification timeline, require confirmation from the relevant health authorities.

A clear, documented timeline would help the public understand what happened and whether established surveillance and response procedures were followed.

THE 44 CONTACTS: WHAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW

The APC campaign council said the surveillance network helped identify the reported case and led to contact tracing involving 44 people.

The claim offers a response to concerns previously raised by Atiku about the monitoring of people who may have been exposed to the infection.

However, identifying 44 contacts is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that the contact-tracing exercise was completed successfully.

The relevant authorities should clarify when the contacts were identified, whether they were reached, the monitoring arrangements put in place and whether any developed symptoms.

They should also explain what measures were taken to protect healthcare workers and other people who might have come into contact with the patient before the diagnosis was established.

Such information would help Nigerians distinguish between allegations of lapses and any shortcomings confirmed by the authorities.

The public interest should remain focused on the effectiveness of the response, the protection of potentially exposed individuals and the accuracy of official communications.

ATIKU’S ALLEGATION ABOUT CAMPAIGN RALLIES

The APC campaign council also rejected Atiku’s allegation that the government’s public health communication could be intended to discourage attendance at political rallies or interfere with voting.

Alake described the allegation as speculative, arguing that the press conference in question did not announce such a measure but appealed to Nigerians to comply with the protocols established by the relevant task force.

The council urged Atiku and his supporters to avoid politicising public health issues, particularly when the country needs cooperation to prevent the spread of a potentially deadly disease.

Atiku, in his earlier statement, had warned against using an emergency as a justification for restricting political gatherings or discouraging electoral participation.

He called for any proposed restrictions to be supported by medical evidence, applied fairly and consistent with Nigerians’ democratic rights.

At present, the two positions highlight a disagreement over the possible political implications of public health measures.

Any decision affecting public gatherings should be explained transparently by the responsible authorities, supported by appropriate medical evidence and applied according to clearly stated public health criteria.

Neither the allegation of a political motive nor the rejection of that allegation should substitute for evidence of the measures actually proposed or implemented.

A FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION THAT REMAINS

The APC response has introduced a significant claim into the controversy: that the ₦10 billion emergency fund has not been touched.

That claim deserves clarification through financial records rather than political statements alone.

There are important distinctions between presidential approval, budgetary provision, cash release, commitment of funds and actual expenditure.

A presidential approval does not automatically establish that money has been released or spent. Equally, a claim that funds remain untouched should be supported by records showing their status.

To establish the facts, the Federal Government and the relevant agencies should clarify:

1. The approval: What instrument or official document authorised the reported ₦10 billion emergency allocation?
2. The release: Was any portion of the money released to the responsible agencies, and on what dates?
3. The expenditure: If the fund remains untouched, what resources have the NCDC, FAAN and other agencies used to finance the response?
4. The task force: What is the task force’s mandate, and how are its financial and operational responsibilities divided among participating agencies?
5. Contact tracing: What is the current status of the 44 contacts identified in the APC statement?
6. Health worker protection: What protective equipment, training and operational support were available to the medical personnel involved?
7. Public disclosure: Will the government publish sufficient financial and operational information to allow Nigerians to assess the response independently?

These questions do not presume that money has been misappropriated or that the health authorities have failed. They identify the information needed to determine whether the emergency response has been adequately funded, properly managed and transparently administered.

TARAKIRIVOICE’S EARLIER REPORT AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENT

In its earlier report, Tarakirivoice Newspaper examined Atiku’s demand for accountability over the reported ₦10 billion and his allegations concerning the handling of the reported Ebola case.

That report highlighted questions about the timeline of diagnosis, the monitoring of contacts, the protection of healthcare workers and the possibility of public health measures affecting political gatherings.

The APC Presidential Campaign Council has now responded with a different account, particularly concerning the status of the emergency fund and the explanation for the patient’s reported failure to be detected at the airport.

The new statement is a relevant development, but it does not, on its own, conclusively settle every question raised in the earlier report.

The financial claim requires supporting documentation, while the epidemiological explanation and the account of contact tracing should be assessed against information from the responsible health authorities.

For a matter involving public health and public resources, the standard should be evidence rather than partisan assumptions.

WHAT WE KNOW — AND WHAT REMAINS UNANSWERED

What the APC says:

• The reported ₦10 billion Ebola emergency fund approved in June remains untouched.
• The NCDC, FAAN and other surveillance agencies have used other available resources.
• The surveillance system helped alert the government to the reported case and initiate contact tracing involving 44 contacts.
• The government did not announce a plan to discourage political rallies during the press conference referenced by Atiku.

What Atiku raised:

• The need for a detailed account of the reported ₦10 billion.
• Questions about the timeline of the reported infection and public confirmation.
• Concerns about contact tracing and the protection of frontline health workers.
• An allegation that public health communication could be used to discourage political participation.

What still requires verification:

• The documentary evidence establishing the financial status of the ₦10 billion.
• The precise timeline of the reported case and the response by health authorities.
• The status of the 44 contacts mentioned by the APC council.
• The resources used by the relevant agencies and the adequacy of the emergency response.
• Any actual proposal to restrict political gatherings and the medical evidence supporting it.

CONCLUSION: PUBLIC HEALTH MUST COME BEFORE POLITICAL ARGUMENTS

The exchange between Atiku Abubakar’s camp and the APC Presidential Campaign Council has widened the public debate over the reported Ebola case, but political disagreement should not obscure the need for reliable information.

The APC has asserted that the ₦10 billion remains untouched. Atiku has demanded accountability over the funding and raised questions about the government’s preparedness.

The next step should be the publication of verifiable financial and operational records capable of resolving the dispute.

Nigerians need clear information about the reported case, the measures taken to protect the public, the status of contact tracing and the resources available to the agencies responsible for the response.

Political parties have a right to question the government’s actions, and the government has a responsibility to answer legitimate questions with evidence.

Above all, public health communication must remain accurate, responsible and guided by medical expertise.

Tarakirivoice Newspaper will continue to follow the controversy, examine new evidence and report developments concerning public health preparedness and the accountability of public funds.