The 2023 presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, has clarified that the forfeiture of $460,000 by President Bola Tinubu to the US government in 1993 was due to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
In the final address by his lawyers at the ongoing presidential election petition court, Atiku described arguments by Tinubu’s lawyers that there was no arraignment or criminal conviction in respect of the forfeiture as “feeble.”
Recalled that Tinubu sole witness, Senator Bamidele Opeyemi, admitted under cross-examination admitted the forfeiture during court proceedings, but claimed that the forfeiture was part of a civil court action and that he was never convicted of a crime.
Atiku’s lawyers argued that the forfeiture proceedings constituted a “sentence of imprisonment or fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud” and that Tinubu is therefore disqualified from being president under Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution.
Meanwhile, the final address, as endorsed by Atiku’s lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), stated, “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, clearly indicated that Tinubu, the 2nd Respondent’s funds totalling $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 to the United States Government for narcotics trafficking and money laundering activities but engaged in the 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 the 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 the 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.
“No doubt and it is so submitted that the ‘United States District Court, Northern District Illinois, Eastern Division’ qualified as a court of record and the forfeiture qualified as a punishment for criminal behaviour or ‘Criminal activity’ of the 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 are clearly elastic enough and indeed disqualified the 2nd Respondent in his quest to contest the Presidential election.”
