aswani:
So Obi's lawyers are no longer saying president Tinubu was convicted as per their petition, they are now talking about forfeiture. Effectively, we are now been told that he should be disqualified because he didn't appeal a forfeiture order.

True story from the US state of California . A hitman killed a serving police officer and somehow a police informant led the police to him.

The police case wasn't strong and in truth, though they wanted to nail him, they looked at the bigger picture. They did a deal with him whereby he was never convicted but he told them who hired him and served as a witness in court for the prosecution in the case against the officer that hired him who later got convicted.

No charges were brought against the hitman and he is still goes about his life without being treated as a felon though he has sworn on oath that he committed a murder.

Point is, like President Tinubu, the hitman might have been a naughty boy but he was never convicted of a crime to assume the status of a felon and can still vote (not sure if Cali is one of the states that barr convicted felons from voting sha).

On a side note, do Obi's lawyers even know the difference between a misdemeanor, felony or grand lacerny? If I pick up a parking fine in the US, would those bunch of jokers claim I can't contest as president?

It's a shame Obi didn't hire them pro bono, this case would have ended ages ago.

BERNIMOORE:
that's a strong point, I think the Obi Lawyers are actually doing a diligent work here, ....I have read over and over again the submission of the Tinubu group about the forfeiture,and I discovered that they have only been flogging over & over again their own interpretation, mere guessing & often imposing their own views on the Matter, but we all know that the case itself, and of course the res of the case, actually originated from a criminal proceeding, and since it hasn't been challenged to mean otherwise by any Court of jurisdiction, it can only humbly concluded that the case still sits on its originating status...that is ''criminal case''

Lotanna2:
A court in Nigeria qualifies section D. the sentence must be conviction or something equivalent involving fraud or dishonesty.it says death sentence or imprisonment or sentence of fine which means conviction because when you are convicted,you must be imprisoned or alternatively fined.there is no such thing against tinubu

9jaRealist:


It most certainly does NOT..

An elementary rule of legal interpretation is that the more things are specifically provided for or spelt out in a statute, the more it is assumed that those things not specifically so provided are excluded or otherwise NOT covered. Accordingly, while in Section D, the statute specifically provides that the extant death sentence must have been imposed by “any competent court or tribunal in Nigeria” but only provides that fines must be imposed by just “any competent court or tribunal” without including the qualifier “in Nigeria” signifies that there is NO geographical or national restrictions with respect to the latter.
>

Lotanna2:


Of law or tribunal in Nigeria and all the sentences equals conviction

seunmsg:
Is there any sense in challenging an order from a civil case?

So, if VIO or FRSC fines me N5k today for traffic offense, is there any sense in wasting time challenging the order?

Since it’s a forfeiture resulting from a civil case, what’s the point fighting it? Tinubu was already a Senator when the forfeiture order was made against his account. So, it makes more sense to simply allow the civil forfeiture order stand than to keep wasting money on appeal. Same way we all pay VIO and FRSC fine for traffic offense without appeal.

Penguin2:

Ordinarily I would leave you to suit yourself but I will never allow you twist the clear provision of the constitution in order to prepare a soft ground for a kangaroo judgment.

Look at that subsection D very well.

After the reference to a court in Nigeria, it went to state other possible fines that could be instituted by “any court or tribunal”. English no suppose hard na.

Again, I thought you said it had 10 years expiry date? Can you see it?

U go dey alright las las

aswani:
So Obi's lawyers are no longer saying president Tinubu was convicted as per their petition, they are now talking about forfeiture. Effectively, we are now been told that he should be disqualified because he didn't appeal a forfeiture order.

True story from the US state of California . A hitman killed a serving police officer and somehow a police informant led the police to him.

The police case wasn't strong and in truth, though they wanted to nail him, they looked at the bigger picture. They did a deal with him whereby he was never convicted but he told them who hired him and served as a witness in court for the prosecution in the case against the officer that hired him who later got convicted.

No charges were brought against the hitman and he is still goes about his life without being treated as a felon though he has sworn on oath that he committed a murder.

Point is, like President Tinubu, the hitman might have been a naughty boy but he was never convicted of a crime to assume the status of a felon and can still vote (not sure if Cali is one of the states that barr convicted felons from voting sha).

On a side note, do Obi's lawyers even know the difference between a misdemeanor, felony or grand lacerny? If I pick up a parking fine in the US, would those bunch of jokers claim I can't contest as president?

It's a shame Obi didn't hire them pro bono, this case would have ended ages ago.

pquaver:


We get fined everyday it is not a big thing.. Redlight, train without ticket, wrong parking etc.. Even ur obi i am sure has been fined..

Lotanna2:



It is the same thing.a sentence anywhere in the world and sentence is conviction.where is the conviction?

Penguin2:

“A sentence of imprisonment or fine involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatsoever name)…”

What does or stand for here?

Lotanna2:


Tinubu will make things better

9jaRealist:


It most certainly does NOT..

An elementary rule of legal interpretation is that the more things are specifically provided for or spelt out in a statute, the more it is assumed that those things not specifically so provided are excluded or otherwise NOT covered. Accordingly, while in Section D, the statute specifically provides that the extant death sentence must have been imposed by “any competent court or tribunal in Nigeria” but only provides that fines must be imposed by just “any competent court or tribunal” without including the qualifier “in Nigeria” signifies that there is NO geographical or national restrictions with respect to the latter.
>

BluntCrazeMan:




No be observe we all go dey observe??

paramakina202:


So traficking narcotics is not criminal and dishonet in nature?
That is the reason why the drug lord should have appealed the forfeiture since he was trading in a legal substance that is not criminal in nature.

Lotanna2:


A sentence of imprisonment or sentence of fine sir.it is conviction as a convict is either imprisoned or fined.yiu don't know law so I don't blame you

Urheadmaster:
Yes. There's every sense in challenging the order if you are innocent

Penguin2:
If Tinubu is innocent of the allegations in the forfeiture order of the US Court of the District of Illinois, why has he not appealed that forfeiture order issued since 1993? Isn’t that what innocent people do?

https://saharareporters.com/2023/07/21/tinubu-hasnt-challenged-us-court-order-forfeiture-460000-narcotics-trafficking-any-court

solreb:
The US prosecutors who tried the case and had all the facts already ruled that Tinubu did not commit a crime. That is what matters. And they opened a civil case for the forfeiture of the $460k which they already determined Tinubu has no hand in it as he was not among the actual criminals who traded in drugs and put that funds in Tinubu's account. All the acrobatics or conjectures by Obi's lawyers and any other interpretation on the matter by a third party is just an academic exercise. Moreover in 2003 President Obasanjo mandated the IGP Tafa Balogun to contact the USA online matter and they wrote back that Tinubu didn't commit a crime.

Penguin2:

Look at this screenshot below very well…

Where did you see sentence before fine?

You can help highlight it for emphasis and clarity.

Penguin2:

Go back and read that subsection D. This time read it to the end.

How many “OR” can you see? Did you see “any court”?

You can’t read the constitution in piecemeal just to extract the narrative you think suits you.

And whatever is provided for subsection E cannot apply to Subsection D. These subsections are independent and of equal weight.

Lotanna2:


Don't mind that misguided,attention seeking bloke.the fine contemplated by the constitution must be borne out of a judgment or a guilty charge or a sentence and in Nigeria.the constitution went further to say a fine or sentence involving dishonesty or fraud which is criminal in nature.is narcotics fraud or dishonesty?

“The provision of Section 137 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution, is clear, explicit, unambiguous and clearly provides as follows: "A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if -

“He is under a sentence of death imposed by any competent court of law or tribunal in Nigeria OR a sentence of imprisonment or fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatsoever name called) or for any other offence imposed on him by any court or tribunal or substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on him by such a court or tribunal

You didn't also read the one bolded
Keep turning the law upside down in your head

REALretep:



You didn't also read the one bolded
Keep turning the law upside down in your head

Penguin2:

Then tell Tinubu to tell the Tribunal that the fine is for red light.

Sha remember that you lots denied the existence of this case when it came out. Now you are analyzing the degree of its consequence.

Same way you denied that Tinubu had Guinean Citizenship, only for Olanipekus to go to court and say that “once passport expires, citizenship expires.”

Philgafauto:
It is an NCBF - Non-Conviction-based Forfeiture. It is an action in rem, not in personam. It was an action against Tinubu's property, not Tinubu himself. So maybe there is nothing to really appeal against from Tinubu's standpoint.

Appealing against it may have angered the Justice Department and FBI to pursue criminal charges (if they found probable cause, which will involve them empaneling a grand jury). So Tinubu just decided to forget about it since the only thing he lost was money.

That is just my opinion though

seunmsg:
Is there any sense in challenging an order from a civil case?

So, if VIO or FRSC fines me N5k today for traffic offense, is there any sense in wasting time challenging the order?

Since it’s a forfeiture resulting from a civil case, what’s the point fighting it? Tinubu was already a Senator when the forfeiture order was made against his account. So, it makes more sense to simply allow the civil forfeiture order stand than to keep wasting money on appeal. Same way we all pay VIO and FRSC fine for traffic offense without appeal.

FSBoperator:


So now we have switched from wining the elections to that Tinubu was not fit to contest.

Ok
Got it.

Lotanna2:


Four years to go

seunmsg:
Is there any sense in challenging an order from a civil case?

So, if VIO or FRSC fines me N5k today for traffic offense, is there any sense in wasting time challenging the order?

Since it’s a forfeiture resulting from a civil case, what’s the point fighting it? Tinubu was already a Senator when the forfeiture order was made against his account. So, it makes more sense to simply allow the civil forfeiture order stand than to keep wasting money on appeal. Same way we all pay VIO and FRSC fine for traffic offense without appeal.

Penguin2:
If Tinubu is innocent of the allegations in the forfeiture order of the US Court of the District of Illinois, why has he not appealed that forfeiture order issued since 1993? Isn’t that what innocent people do?

https://saharareporters.com/2023/07/21/tinubu-hasnt-challenged-us-court-order-forfeiture-460000-narcotics-trafficking-any-court

Penguin2:

Do I need to remind you that each of those subsections are independent?

You can’t lump the provision of subsection “e” on subsection “d”.

Are you wiser than the framers of the constitution?