BY: News Peddlers
.jpeg) |
| Bola Tinubu |
The All Progressives Congress, APC, has shed light on the circumstances that led to the forfeiture of $460,000 to the government of the United States of America, USA, by its candidate and President-elect, Bola Tinubu, in 1993.
In processes filed to defend the outcome of the presidential election held on February 25, the ruling party maintained that Tinubu, its candidate, merely surrendered funds in 10 bank accounts opened in either his or Compass Finance and Investment Co.'s name.
It informed the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, that funds in the aforementioned accounts were subject to a "civil forfeiture proceeding" in Case No: 93C4483.
The purported decision of the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in the said case, according to the APC, was not a fine but a decree of forfeiture of $460,000 to the United States pursuant to the settlement of claim by the parties to the case.
“The said decision is not against the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) but against the funds in the various account opened in the name of Bola Tinubu with First Heritage Bank and City Bank N.A.
“The compromise terms that led to the forfeiture were preceded by express admission on record that the 2nd Respondent did not admit the commission of any drug, drug-related or illicit conduct of dishonesty or fraud that fits into any of the grounds of disqualification to contest for office of president of Nigeria at the 25th February, 2023 general election,” APC insisted.
It listed the ten account numbers that contained funds that Tinubu forfeited following the settlement of claims by the parties involved in the case as follows: 263226700, 39483134, 39483396, 4650279566, 00400220, 39936404, 39936383, 52050-89451952, 52050-89451952, and 52050-89451953.
Furthermore, the APC's legal team, led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that the Federal Government had inquired about Tinubu's criminal record as early as 2003, through the American Consulate in Nigeria.
The inquiry, conducted by the FG through the Inspector-General of Police, "yielded a clean bill of health that unequivocally and unreservedly cleared 2nd Respondent of any criminal record, interest, or association in the United States of America," according to the statement.
“The formal clearance report dated February 4, 2003, under the hand of Legal attaché to the United States Embassy, Nigeria in response to the inquiry by the Inspector General of Police is hereby pleaded and shall be relied upon for its full effect; particularly the portion in the second paragraph which states-
‘In relation to your letter, dated February 3, 2003, reference number SR.3000 /IGP SEC/ABJ/VOL. 24/287, regarding Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a records check of the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) was conducted.
The results of the checks were negative for any criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for Bola Ahmed Tinubu (DOB 29 March. 1952). For your department's information, NCIC is a centralised information centre that keeps records of every arrest and conviction in the United States and its territories.'
The APC stated that it would seek a new subpoena from the IGP to allow him to adduce and tender in evidence the letter dated February 3, 2003, reference number SR.3000 /IGP SEC/ABJ/VOL. 24/287, which triggered the clearance letter of the US Embassy in Nigeria, as well as the response to same dated February 4, 2003.
It also argued that Tinubu's forfeiture to the US government, which lasted 29 years, was no longer a valid basis for challenging his eligibility to run in the presidential election.
“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.
“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 found 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 find and rely on the letter issued by the Embassy of the United States of America, Nigeria dated 4th February 2003.
“Furthermore, the release from forfeiture of other monies in the account the subject of the proceedings in Case No: 93C4483; in excess of one million dollars and for the benefit of the named beneficiary K.O Tinubu though not the account holder, less forfeited sum of $460,000.00 (Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) is a manifest affirmation that the case was not a criminal trial and the fund forfeited was not a fine imposed as a punishment for a criminal conviction of any person- let alone the 2nd Respondent.
“The disqualification factors as stipulated by the Constitution only conceives of a conviction sentence or fine involving dishonesty or fraud or contravention of the Code of Conduct as found by a Court of the law of competent jurisdiction or Tribunal in Nigeria,” it added.
The APC urged the court to dismiss petitions against Tinubu, claiming that Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party, who claimed Tinubu was convicted in a drug-related case, lacked the required locus standi to challenge the outcome of the presidential election.
The APC insisted that Obi was not validly nominated by the LP because he was not a member of the party at least 30 days before the party's presidential primary election.
It informed the court that Obi was a member of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, until May 24, 2022, and that he was screened as the party's presidential candidate in April, 2022.
The APC also claimed that while Obi joined the LP on May 27, he was declared the winner of the LP's presidential primary election on May 30, 2022.
"By section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 2nd Petitioner (LP) is mandated to have submitted its comprehensive register of members to the 1st Respondent 30 days before its presidential primary.
“That is to say the said register of members must have been submitted to the 1st Respondent on or before 30th April, 2022.
“The 1st Petitioner (Obi) as at 30th April, 2022 was still a member of the PDP and his name was not and could not have been in the register of members submitted by the 2nd Petitioner to 1st Respondent (INEC).
“The Petition herein is incompetent as the 1st Petitioner is not a member of the 2nd Petitioner since the 1st Petitioner’s name is not, and could have been listed in the list of the register made available by the 2nd Petitioner to the 1st Respondent, same having been made available before the 1st Petitioner joined the 2nd Petitioner”.
As a result, it asked the court to dismiss or strike down Obi's petition "wholly or in part, as appropriate."
(Vanguard News)