The Presidential candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party PDP, in the February 25 presidential election, Atiku Abubakar, has maintained that the declaration of President Bola Tinubu as number one citizen in Nigeria is “unlawful and unconstitutional”.
Consequently, demanded that Tinubu must be removed from the office so as to sanitise the country’s polity.
Atiku made the submission Tuesday in his final address to support his petition seeking nullification of Tinubu’s victory.
He maintained 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.
Atiku dismissed the claim of Tinubu and his witness that he forfeited the $460,000 money in a civil court action.
The former Vice President argued that the definition and colour of “civil action” being given to the criminal forfeiture by Tinubu were 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.
ALSO READ:
- Erotic Monday Night: Sex on the floor, my new obsession, by Tiwa Says
- Soludo’s security initiative and Obiora Okonkwo’s senseless criticism, by Sheddy Ozoene
- 80-year-old Ondo prince arraigned for alleged damage of Akinadewo’s family property
- FG asks court to dismiss bail application filed by suspects linked to Bello Turji
- MRA calls for legitimate measures to ensure safer Internet for users in Nigeria
The final address endorsed by Atiku’s lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, read 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, 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 judgement 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 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.
Follow The Eagle Online Channel on WhatsApp
