Tinubu Had No Basis To Contest For Nigeria’s Presidency – Atiku

The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Atiku Abubakar has come out to insist that the declaration of Bola Tinubu as Nigeria’s president is unlawful and unconstitutional.

He recently had his say while speaking to the press, and Nigerians have been reacting.

According to him, Tinubu must be removed from office to sanitise the country’s polity because he personally admitted to have forfeited $460,000 to the American government over the offence of narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

Atiku added that anyone who has been involved with such crimes has no basis to contest for Nigeria’s presidency.

His words, “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, was 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 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 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.”