Bola Tinubu’s election as president of Nigeria is allegedly illegal, illegitimate, and in violation of the constitution, according to Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) presidential candidate.
According to Atiku, Tinubu’s ability to run for president of Nigeria is in doubt because he has admitted to losing $460,000 to the American government as a result of drug trafficking and money laundering charges, and a witness has attested to this fact.
In his final speech in favour of his petition to have Tinubu’s victory declared invalid, Atiku rejected Tinubu’s assertion that the loss of the money was a component of a civil court case.
This distinction, according to Atiku, is meaningless because Tinubu’s indictment was the basis for the United States District Court’s decision to impose the forfeiture fine on him.
Chief Chris Uche (SAN), Atiku’s principal lawyer, has signed the final address, which reads as follows:
“None of the Respondents protest nor question the forfeiture of $460,000 by the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) to the United States Government (a competent authority in the instant matter). The Respondents’ weak defence is that there was no arrest or conviction for a crime.
The verified forfeiture complaint and all court documents from the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dated September 15, 1993, made it abundantly clear that Tinubu, the second respondent, had $460,000 in funds that were the proceeds of drug trafficking and money laundering.
“When given the American court judgement during cross-examination, Senator Bamidele Opeyemi, the lone witness for the second respondent (Tinubu), confessed that the proceedings affected him because his name appeared in the court’s records.
It is important to note that the second respondent (Tinubu) evaded the forfeiture of the aforementioned $460,000 to the US government for money laundering and drug trafficking activities by drawing a distinction between civil and criminal forfeiture and arguing that the offence was committed over a 10-year period.
“It is argued that the source of forfeiture, whether “civil” or “criminal,” is the conduct of a crime.
“The term “forfeiture” refers to the sale of property without payment. the loss of a right, privilege, or item as a result of a wrongdoing, obligation breach, or duty neglect.
“It is respectfully suggested that the imputation of a crime, which results in the seizure of property or money, is the common thread that connects all of the aforementioned definitions of forfeiture.
“Therefore, it cannot be asserted that no crime was imputed or that no breach of the law regarding the proceeds of drug trafficking or/and money laundering was discovered for which penalty was imposed.
A sentence of imprisonment or fine imposed on the second respondent by any court or tribunal for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatever name called) or for any other offence, or any sentence substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on him by such a court or tribunal, falls squarely within the prohibition and disqualification list contained in Section 137(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution.
“There is no question, and it is so argued, that the “United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division” met the requirements to be a court of record, and the forfeiture met the requirements to be a penalty for the second respondent’s unlawful behaviour.
“The Petitioners contend that the terms “any offence (by whatever named called)” and “substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on him” as used are obviously ambiguous enough to invalidate the eligibility of the 2nd Respondent to run for president.”
In order to invalidate Tinubu’s election as president due to his drug felony, Atiku requested that the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) utilise Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution.
