A Non-Governmental Organisation, Centre For Reform and Public Advocacy, has dragged the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency and the Attorney-General of the Federation AGF and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), to court over the alleged involvement of the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress for the 2023 elections, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in money laundering and narcotic trafficking.
Acting through its Lawyer, Kalu Kalu Agu, it filed the suit dated December 2, 2022 at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The Centre for Reform and Public Advocacy listed the NDLEA, Malami and Tinubu as the first, second and third defendants in the suit.
Agu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, in the suit argued that the first and second defendants are bound by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), section 4 of the Criminal Justice, Act, 2015 to prosecute the third defendant under section 18 of the Money Laundering Act, 2022 to the effect that on October 4, 1993, the United States District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division subpoena Tinubu in the case numbered: 93C4483 USA.
The summon, counsel to the plaintiff established, was at the instance of funds in account: 263226700, held by Heritage Bank in the name of Bola Tinubu; Funds in accounts: 39483134, 39483396, 4650279566, 00400220, 39936404, 39936383, all held by Citibank, in the name of Bola Tinubu or Compass Finance and Investments Co; Funds in accounts: 52050-89451952, 5250-89451952, 52050-89451953, held by Citibank International, also in the name of Bola Tinubu.
The suit pointed out that the US court made an order forfeiture of the sum of $460,000 against Tinubu.
Similarly, Agu alleged that the Court ordered that the fund in the amount of $460,000 in account 263226700 held by First Heritage Bank in the name of Bola Tinubu, allegedly represented proceeds of narcotic trafficking “or involved in financial transactions in violation of 18 US C; 1956 and 1957, therefore, funds are forfeited to US pursuant to 21 USC, $881 (a) and 18 USC”.
The suit demanded an order compelling the first and second defendants to discharge their statutory functions by arresting for prosecution, under section 18 of the Money Laundering Act, as reasonable grounds to suspect that Tinubu committed an offence “under the said Money Laundering Act on October 4, 1993 as contained in US Court in case number – 93C4483” with respect to funds in account 263226700 allegedly held by Heritage Bank.
The suit by Agu on behalf of the NGO was sworn in with affidavit setting out facts, including: that the plaintiff was known very well known and depose in the oath for it and with its consent.
That, he Agu, is the Legal Adviser to the plaintiff and head its Legal Department and as such, is knowledgeable about the fact of the matter.
That the plaintiff is an NGO, committed to the pursuit of fundamental reforms in the political engagements, “institutions, management and socio-political underpinning in Nigeria”.
That the first defendant is the statutory body saddled with the responsibility of prosecuting offenders, including money launderers; That the second defendant is the Chief Law Officer of the country and that the third defendant is a Nigerian and the “Presidential candidate of APC”.
The suit pointed out that the issues for determination are as set out in the originating summons, while argument on the issues is with respect to the two issues are according to section 3 of the administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which provides thus: “A suspect or defendant with committing an offence established by an act of the National Assembly shall be arrested, investigated, inquired into, tried or dealt with according to the provisions of this Act, except otherwise provided under this Act.”
The suit argued that the first defendant has a duty to act on an allegation that someone committed an offence of narcotic trafficking, contending that in the instant case exhibit ‘A’ and ‘B’ “which clearly captured facts, showing reasonable suspicion” that Tinubu was involved in narcotic trafficking.
Following this, the suit argued that the plaintiff had the requisite locus standi to institute the case, arising from the effect of narcotics trafficking around the world and in Nigeria.
Recall that the documents emanating from the US court alleging forfeiture followed alleged money laundering and narcotic trafficking against Tinubu surfaced about three weeks ago, drawing comments and reactions from different quarters, especially arguments for and against Tinubu’s eligibility to contest for number one position of the most populated black country.
At a point, the Independent National Electoral Commission was dragged into the saga, when the claim surfaced about two weeks ago that it was investigating the matter, before arriving at a conclusion.
However, INEC distanced itself from the claim.
On its own, the APC Presidential Campaign Council has berated the opposition, saying they are the brains behind the allegations.
Follow The Eagle Online Channel on WhatsApp
