The All Progressives Congress (APC) has provided an explanation of the events that resulted in its candidate and president-elect, Bola Tinubu, forfeiting $460,000 to the American government in 1993 as a result of a drug trafficking accusation.
Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate, had contested Tinubu’s declaration as the election’s victor, arguing, among other things, that the APC candidate was unable to run for office.
Obi said in his complaint to the electoral tribunal that Tinubu’s seizure of funds to the US government over a drug trafficking charge was proof that he had committed violations serious enough to bar him from running for office.
The APC claimed that Tinubu merely surrendered the money in 10 bank accounts that were registered in either his person or the name of Compass Finance and Investment Co. in fresh court documents filed at the Presidential Election Petition Court.
The APC claimed that the funds in the aforementioned accounts, which were held by two commercial banks, were the subject of a civil forfeiture proceeding in Case No: 93C4483 and that the alleged ruling by the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern division in the aforementioned case was not a fine but rather a decree of forfeiture of the sum of $460,000 to the United States as a result of the parties’ settlement of their claim.
Through attorneys led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the APC informed the court that the Federal Government had inquired about Tinubu’s criminal history as early as 2003 through the American Consulate in Nigeria, and that inquiry had unequivocally and unequivocally cleared Tinubu of any criminal history in the United States of America.
Dismiss Peter Obi’s Petition, Probe States Labour Party Won – Tinubu Asks Tribunal
The APC maintained that Tinubu’s forfeiture to the US government, which lasted for 29 years, was no longer a sufficient reason to oppose his ability to run for president.
“The Respondent states that, in any event, the impleaded decision of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division is not a decision by a competent court of law or tribunal in Nigeria; and same has been falsely, mischievously paraded by 2nd Respondent’s political adversaries like the petitioners, detractors and haters to scandalize, demonize and de-market him to the Nigerian electorate at the 25th February, 2023 general election with a view to delegitimizing his well-earned victory at the polls, despite all legitimate and fact-checked denials and rebuttals as exemplified by the official report from the United States affirming his innocence and exonerating him from the touted drug connection and criminal conviction.
“The Respondent states further that in any event, the said decree of forfeiture was made by Judge John A Nordberg in the said Case No: 93C4483 on the 4th day of October 1993, a period of 29 years before the 25th day of February 2023 when the said presidential election was duly conducted by the 1st Respondent.
2023 Presidency: Peter Obi Reveals Real Re4ason He Visited Wike
“The Respondent avers that the allegations referred to in the said paragraph have been subjecting to litigation and duly litigated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1146/1999.
“The Respondent further avers that having been litigated upon by a competent court of law, this Honorable Court is estopped from retrying the same issues that have been appealed against. The Respondent shall find and rely upon the judgment in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1146/1999.
“Without prejudice to the above, the Respondent avers that the Nigeria Police Force investigated the 2nd Respondent regarding any record of criminal arrest and/or conviction. The investigation was extensive and far-reaching.
“Consequently, the American Consulate, Lagos Nigeria revealed that there was no record whatsoever of any criminal arrest, warrants and/or conviction regarding the 2nd Respondent. The Respondent shall found and rely on letter issued by the Embassy of United States of America, Nigeria dated 4th February 2003.”
Follow us on Facebook
Post Disclaimer
The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of Anaedo Online or official policies of the Anaedo Online.