It did not take long for the story to travel. In the days following the APC House of Representatives primaries for the Yola North/Yola South/Girei federal constituency, reports began circulating across Adamawa social media networks that Ahmad Uthman Muhammad, the young philanthropist and public figure known widely as Dawisu Adamawa, had been arrested by the Department of State Services over an alleged N460 million Hajj forex fraud.
The claim moved fast. It found eager audiences on WhatsApp groups and Facebook pages. It was packaged as breaking news. And it arrived without a single document, without a court record, without an EFCC statement, and without any evidence that the arrest it described had ever taken place.
The facts, when checked against independent reporting, told a completely different story. Ahmad Uthman Muhammad was never in DSS custody. He was not under investigation. He was invited by the Police for questioning regarding a personal matter, was cleared, and was released on the same day.
Into that gap between the allegation and the facts stepped Achina Williams.
The Statement Achina Williams Issued
As the authorised media aide and spokesperson for Ahmad Uthman Muhammad, Achina Williams issued a formal statement on behalf of his principal. It was measured, precise, and pointed. It did not rely on emotion. It relied on a question that the allegation’s own internal logic cannot answer.
The statement, issued under Williams’s signature, reads in full:
“Setting the Facts Straight.
The real issue here is not all the false, unverified, and misleading information being spread around. The real issue is that this is a disagreement between two young men, a situation that has been ongoing for well over a year.
Everyone in Adamawa, and probably many across Nigeria, knows about the bitter relationship between these two individuals and how they have consistently attacked each other publicly over time.
Today, the same Musa Sani who has been on loggerheads with Ahmad is now claiming he entrusted funds to Ahmad. The question the public should ask is simple: when exactly did they reconcile and begin doing business together?
At this point, I believe many people have started seeing the truth for what it really is.
The allegations of fraud are completely false, misleading, and politically or personally motivated. What we are witnessing is simply a rivalry between two young men that has lingered for months and is now being twisted into something entirely different.
We urge the general public to avoid rushing to conclusions based on social media narratives and unverified claims.”
Signed: Achina Williams, Media Aide, Ahmad Uthman Muhammad
Why the Central Question Matters
The most powerful element of Williams’s statement is not its denial. Denials are expected from any camp responding to an allegation. The most powerful element is the question it plants and leaves standing in the public square.
If Musa Sani and Ahmad Uthman Muhammad have been in a bitter, documented, publicly known feud for over a year, a fact that Williams says is known to everyone in Adamawa, then the allegation that Musa entrusted funds to Ahmad during that same period requires an explanation that the allegation itself does not provide.
Entrustment of funds implies trust. It implies a relationship. It implies, at the most basic level, that the two parties were on speaking terms and operating in a business context of mutual confidence. That does not describe two men who, by Williams’s account and community knowledge, have been publicly at loggerheads for months.
The logical sequence matters here. For Musa’s allegation to be credible, he must be able to answer three questions. When did the feud end? When did a business relationship begin? And what documented evidence exists of the financial transaction he describes?
Williams has raised those questions publicly and on the record. They are now in the public domain. And until Musa Sani provides answers with evidence, the allegation rests on a foundation that its own timeline undermines.
What the Verified Record Confirms
Williams does not ask the public to simply trust his principal’s denial. The verified public record provides independent support for the camp’s position.
Blueprint Newspapers confirmed, in a report published within days of the allegation’s circulation, that Ahmad Uthman Muhammad described the report as fake news and dismissed it in its entirety. He described the claims as concocted by enemies of progress who are hell-bent on seeing his downfall in their desperate efforts to bring him down for their selfish political interests.
ThisNigeria’s independent reporting confirmed separately that Ahmad Uthman said he was never in DSS custody, was not under investigation, was only invited by the Police for a personal matter, and was cleared and released the same day.
Two independent national news outlets, reporting separately, produced the same account. Neither has published a retraction. Neither has published evidence contradicting the clearance claim. The allegation, on the available verified record, has no documentary support.
The Timing That Tells Its Own Story
Williams’s statement stops short of saying it explicitly, but the timing of the allegation speaks with a clarity that requires no elaboration.
The allegation emerged in the immediate aftermath of a competitive APC primary. It targeted a man who had just concluded a House of Representatives primary bid and whose name was already in active public circulation as a political aspirant. It came from someone described as a documented personal rival. And it arrived on social media, which is simultaneously the fastest distribution channel and the least accountable publishing platform in the country.
In Nigerian political culture, the post-primary period is consistently one of the most fertile seasons for character attacks on aspirants who have made themselves visible. The pattern is documented across constituencies and election cycles. An aspirant who ran, built a public profile, and attracted community support becomes a target for those who wish to diminish that profile before the general election conversation begins.
Williams is making precisely this case on behalf of his principal. Not with conspiracy language. With a simple, verifiable observation: the man making the allegation has been the man’s public rival for over a year. The allegation arrived at the most politically convenient moment for that rival. And the allegation has no documentary support.
A Word on Social Media and the Responsibility of the Public
Achina Williams’s closing appeal in the statement deserves more attention than social media audiences typically give closing appeals. He urges the general public to avoid rushing to conclusions based on social media narratives and unverified claims.
That is not a partisan instruction. It is a democratic one. Every Nigerian, regardless of their relationship to the person being accused, benefits from a culture in which allegations require evidence before they are treated as verdicts. The ease with which a fraud allegation can be manufactured, circulated, and amplified without a single supporting document is not a problem unique to Ahmad Uthman Muhammad. It is a structural feature of the current Nigerian information environment that has damaged reputations, derailed careers, and silenced public voices across every sector of public life.
Williams and his principal are asking for the same standard that every Nigerian deserves when their name is attached to an allegation they did not earn: show the evidence, or acknowledge that the allegation is not what it claims to be.
On the available evidence, the public response to the allegation against Ahmad Uthman Muhammad should be straightforward. A man was invited by police for a personal matter. He was cleared. He was released the same day. His documented rival then alleged fraud. His spokesperson has now raised the question that rival cannot answer.
When did the reconciliation happen?
Until that question has a credible, documented answer, Achina Williams has given the public every reason to treat this allegation exactly as he described it.
A feud. Not a fraud.
This report was produced by the editorial team at The Gazette News | Independent. Human-Centred. Impactful in line with our commitment to accuracy, fairness, and responsible journalism. Information in this article is based on verified sources available at the time of publication. The Gazette News | Independent. Human-Centred. Impactful may update the story as new facts emerge or additional context becomes available.
The Gazette News | Independent. Human-Centred. Impactful accepts zero funding from governments, corporations, or political parties. No advertiser dictates our coverage. No political interest shapes our investigations. The journalism you just read exists because readers like you chose to protect it. Every contribution goes directly into the field — paying reporters, protecting sources, and ensuring the stories that matter get told without fear or favour.
Funded by Readers
Us Right Now
