The case against Tigran Gambaryan

Recently, Tigran Gambaryan, a Binance executive, took to social media to paint a damning picture of his time in Nigerian custody. His claims of bribery and corruption, particularly against National Security Adviser (NSA) Malam Nuhu Ribadu, were designed to stir controversy and shape public perception. But a closer look at the allegations—and the man making […]

Recently, Tigran Gambaryan, a Binance executive, took to social media to paint a damning picture of his time in Nigerian custody. His claims of bribery and corruption, particularly against National Security Adviser (NSA) Malam Nuhu Ribadu, were designed to stir controversy and shape public perception. But a closer look at the allegations—and the man making them—reveals an attempt to rewrite the narrative and shift blame from Binance’s own questionable dealings in Nigeria.

Gambaryan’s allegations were not only reckless but transparently self-serving. They followed a well-worn script of individuals caught in legal trouble abroad: when all else fails, cry corruption. This approach aims to cast doubt on the legitimacy of their detention and create international pressure to discredit the host country’s institutions. But what Gambaryan failed to account for is that his accusations, particularly against Ribadu, were simply not credible.

For one, the timing of these claims raises serious doubts about his intent. Why did it take him eight months in detention before making these allegations? If there was any real evidence, why was it not presented earlier, either in court or to diplomatic representatives? Instead, his claims surfaced after Binance faced scrutiny and consequences for its alleged financial misconduct in Nigeria—suggesting a calculated move to distract from the company’s legal troubles.

Where Gambaryan truly overreached was in his attempt to drag Ribadu into the mix. His claim that Ribadu sought “billions in payouts to fund his future political ambition” is not only baseless but also shows a clear lack of understanding of Ribadu’s record.

• How unhygienic abattoirs plaque community with diseases
• NPC partners states to document Nigeria’s economic, tourism potential

As the founding chairman of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ribadu built his reputation on fighting corruption. His refusal to accept a $15 million cash bribe from a former governor in the country  remains one of the most well-documented acts of integrity in Nigerian history. The idea that a man who turned down such an offer when he had everything to lose would now, decades later, throw it all away for an unverifiable bribe from a detained cryptocurrency executive defies logic.

Furthermore, Gambaryan’s claim was riddled with factual inconsistencies. He suggested that Ribadu needed the alleged bribe to fund an election campaign. But there was no election in the period in question, nor has Ribadu publicly pursued any political ambitions that would require such funding. This single falsehood dismantles Gambaryan’s entire premise.

The controversy surrounding Binance in Nigeria is not an isolated incident. The company has been under investigation and has faced penalties in multiple countries for alleged money laundering, unlicensed financial operations, and regulatory violations. Its troubles in Nigeria were not politically motivated but part of a broader global reckoning against its business practices.

COTER (Coalition for Transparency and Economic Reforms) rightly pointed out that Binance has been banned and heavily fined in several countries for illegal financial activities. This raises an important question: if Binance is innocent, why does it keep running into the same allegations worldwide? The reality is that the company has been repeatedly accused of enabling illicit financial flows, making it a prime target for regulators.

In Nigeria, Binance’s operations were linked to economic sabotage, including currency manipulation and money laundering. These are serious allegations that go beyond mere regulatory infractions—they threaten national security and economic stability. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Nigerian government took decisive action against the company.

Gambaryan’s social media outburst was not about exposing corruption; it was about reshaping the narrative to portray himself as a victim. By doing so, he hoped to shift international attention from Binance’s legal troubles to a manufactured tale of persecution. But there is a fundamental legal principle that applies here: the burden of proof rests on the accuser.

If Gambaryan has evidence to support his claims, he should present it in a court of law, not on social media. Until then, his allegations remain what they appear to be—a desperate attempt to escape accountability.

The Nigerian government, in its handling of the Binance case, has demonstrated that no entity, no matter how powerful, should be above the law. Rather than being seen as an attack on foreign business interests, Nigeria’s actions should be understood as a firm stance against financial crimes. And if there is one lesson to take from this saga, it is that those who engage in economic misconduct must be prepared to face the consequences, no matter how elaborate their distraction tactics may be.

Ibrahim Abdullahi is a public affairs analyst, and writes from Abuja.