By Vivian Okejeme, Abuja
The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in the February 25 presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has insisted that the declaration of Bola Tinubu as Nigeria’s president is unlawful, null and void and unconstitutional.
In his final written address, the former vice president posited that Tinubu having personally admitted and as also confirmed by his witness that he forfeited $460,000 to the American government over the offence of narcotics trafficking and money laundering has no basis to contest for Nigeria’s Presidency let alone being declared as the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Atiku, through his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, dismissed the claim of Tinubu and his witness that he forfeited the $460,000 money in a civil court action.
Consequently, he prayed the tribunal to invoke Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution to nullify the declaration of Tinubu as President on account of his narcotics drugs crime and throw him out of office as Nigeria’s President.
Furthermore, he submitted that the definition and colour of “civil action” being given to the criminal forfeiture by Tinubu was of no moment and untenable because a United States of America Court acted on the indictment of Tinubu before imposing the forfeiture fine on him.
The final address reads in part.
“The forfeiture of $460,000 by the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) to the United States Government (a competent authority in the instant case) is neither contested nor disputed by any of the Respondents. The feeble response of the Respondents is that there was no arraignment or criminal conviction.
“The verified complaint for forfeiture and the entire records of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division dated September 15, 1993, it was clearly indicated that the 2nd Respondent’s funds totaling $460,000, were seized as the funds which constitute proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
“The 2nd Respondent’s (Tinubu’s) sole witness Senator Bamidele Opeyemi, admitted under cross examination when shown the American court judgment that the proceedings affected the 2nd Respondent, as his name was reflected in the records of the court.
“It is pertinent to observe that the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) evaded denying the forfeiture of the said sum of $460,000 U.S Dollars to the United States Government for narcotics trafficking and money laundering activities but engaged in semantic distinction between civil and criminal forfeiture, as well as the defence that the offence was committed over 10 years.
“It is submitted, that forfeiture whether “civil” or “criminal” takes its source from commission of a crime.
“The word “forfeiture” means – “the divestiture of property without compensation. The loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of duty.”
“It is submitted with respect that in all the above definitions, the common thread that runs through all categories of Forfeiture is the imputation of a crime, leading to seizure of property or money.
“It cannot be argued therefore that there was no imputation of crime, or a finding of violation of Penal laws relating to proceeds of drug trafficking or/and money laundering for which punishment was imposed.
“The 2nd Respondent’s forfeiture proceedings fall squarely within the prohibition and disqualification list contained in Section 137(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution as the proceedings constitute:
“…a sentence of imprisonment or fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatever name called) OR for any other offence, imposed on him by any court or tribunal OR substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on him by such a court or tribunal, or.”
“No doubt, and it is so submitted that the “United States DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION qualified as a court (of record) and the forfeiture qualified as a punishment for criminal behavior or “Criminal activity” of 2nd Respondent. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the words “any offence (by whatever named called)” and “substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on him” as used is clearly elastic enough and indeed disqualified the 2nd Respondent in his quest to contest the Presidential election.
