Tinubu, Shettima challenge Obi’s petition over 30-year-old US drug forfeiture order

Patrick OdeyJuly 17, 2023

3 minutes read

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has received the final written address of President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima, who are defending their electoral victory against the petition of the Labour party candidate, Mr Peter Obi.

Obi had asked the court to void the election of Tinubu and Shettima on the ground that they were not qualified to contest due to a 1993 United States District Court judgment that ordered Tinubu to forfeit $460,000 suspected to be proceeds of drug trafficking.

“The Petitioners further plead that the Tinubu was also at the time of the election not qualified to contest for election to the office of President as he was fined the sum of $460,000.00 (Four-Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) for an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking imposed by the United

States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483 between:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff FUNDS IN ACCOUNT 263226700 HELD BY FIRST HERITAGE BANK, IN THE NAME OF BOLA TINUBU,” Obi’s lawyers stated in their petition.

However, Tinubu and Shettima, through their legal team led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued that the US judgment was not a criminal conviction and that it had expired after 10 years in line with Section 137 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution. They also contended that the judgment was not registered in Nigeria and that it had no bearing on their eligibility to run for office.

“In addition to the foregoing, and assuming without ever conceding that Exhibit PBF1 (US Court Judgment) is remotely connected with criminal forfeiture, section 137 (1) (e) of the Constitution gives an expiration period of a maximum of 10 years for the subsistence of that conviction and sentence,after which the convict could contest an election to the office of President of Nigeria, ” Olanipekun stated.

The address, dated July 14, was obtained by THE WHISTLER and it responded to the evidence and arguments presented by Obi’s legal team led by Dr Livy Uzoukwu, SAN. Obi’s lawyers had submitted the US judgment as an exhibit and brought a witness to testify that Tinubu was fined for an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking.

Tinubu Orders Adamu, Omisore to Quit as APC Leaders Amid Crisis

Tinubu and Shettima’s lawyers challenged the admissibility and relevance of the US judgment, saying it was not certified by any police officer from the US and that it did not mention any fine imposed on Tinubu. They also accused Obi’s witness of giving hearsay evidence and making false statements under oath.

They maintained that Tinubu and Shettima were duly qualified and elected as President and Vice President of Nigeria in the February 25 polls and urged the court to dismiss Obi’s petition for lacking in merit.

“Upon registration, it becomes a Nigerian judgment by virtue of the order for registration, and can then be enforced, relied upon, or put in use,” Olanipekun contended.

Olanipekun further argued that the judgment should not be relied upon in Nigeria because Obi’s witnesses could not provide any “certificate purporting to be given under the hand of a police officer” from the US “containing a copy of the sentence or order and the finger prints of the [Tinubu] or photographs of the finger prints of the [said 2nd respondent], together with evidence that the finger prints of the person so convicted are those of the [2nd respondent].”

He added, “These are the strict prescriptions under section 249 of the Evidence Act , for the proof of previous conviction of a person outside the Nigerian jurisdiction”.

The petition is slated for adoption of written address at a later date before the court fixes the date for judgment.

Olanipekun also pointed out that Obi’s witness, who claimed to be an expert in US law, gave false evidence under oath when he said that Tinubu was fined by the US court. He said the witness could not point to any part of the US judgment where the word “fine” was mentioned or imposed on Tinubu.

He said the witness also contradicted himself when he admitted that he did not know the meaning of “in rem” and “in personam” in US law, which are essential terms to distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings.

He said the witness also failed to disclose his relationship with Obi and his interest in the petition, as he was a member of the Labour party and a former senatorial candidate of the party.

He said the witness was not a credible or reliable witness and his evidence should be disregarded by the court.

He urged the court to uphold the election of Tinubu and Shettima as President and Vice President of Nigeria, saying they met all the constitutional requirements and were validly elected by the majority of Nigerians. He asked the court to dismiss Obi’s petition for being frivolous, vexatious and lacking in merit.