₦airaland Forum

Lotanna2:
Did atiku prove that he voluntarily acquired the citizenship?

Has citizenship ever been imposed on anyone?

If yes, give an instance please.

sangresan:
Obi and his lawyers are running round in circles to the amusement of intelligent Nigerians.

1. This was a civil forfeiture and it happens everyday in America with overzealous law enforcement agents.

2. Since it's not a criminal conviction and forfeiture, many Americans prefer not to challenge since the legal fees are likely to be more than the confiscated property or money.

3. This happened some 30 something years ago and it has never been admitted by a Nigerian law court. America and Nigeria have different legal systems and that's why Tinubu came to the Tribunal with a witness who was a qualified American lawyer to explain what is meant by civil forfeiture in America.

4. Obi didn't come to the Tribunal with any American lawyer nor did he invite American law enforcement officials to testify for him.

5. Even if it was a criminal conviction, the Nigerian Constitution stipulated that such a person could contest for public office after 10 years. In America presently, President Donald Trump is set to contest for President next year despite his conviction. There are always clauses and clauses to explore in the legal system.


6. The Inspector General of Police of Nigeria wrote the FBI in 2003 to ask them if Bola Tinubu had a criminal record in the U.S. The reply from the State Department was negative. A copy of the reply has been tendered at the ongoing Tribunal. So, it's basically a no-case.

7. Obi's and his minions claim he won the election, but his lawyers have not been able to prove how he won it, other than trying to get Tinubu disqualified.

8. I dare say if the election is conducted 500 times, Obi cannot win. If it's Obi vs. Atiku, Obi cannot see draw. He can continue to deceive his gullible people till thy kingdom come.

Look at this subsection D very well again.

And keep in mind that the issue in contention here is fine.

Now did you see anywhere the constitution said the fine must be of criminal proceedings?

Again look at well and read to the end, can you point to where the constitution talked about 10 years validity in that subsection?

Shantyken:
Are u wiser than the US that did not convict or forfeit the said money from Tinubu's account as criminal case

The issue in contention here is fine as used by the constitution.

Tinubu was fined. This fact is not in contention.

Now, look at this subsection again, did you see anywhere that the constitution said the fine must be of criminal proceedings?

pquaver:
They have told the court already it is a civilcase and usa also said so, ur wailing on nairaland wont ever change it to criminal case no matter how much u wail.. Reality will hit u soon..

Look at the encircled again, did you see anywhere the constitution said the fine must be criminal in nature?

Why do these guys love defending criminals?

From the Owambe boys on lower ladder who are resident on Nairaland

To those on the top of the pyramid, they always defend criminals.

If it’s not Tinubu, it’s Ibori.

If it’s not Ibori, it’s Asari Dokubo.

If it’s not the fat pig, it’s Ekweremadu.

They even were the greatest defenders of Orji Uzor Kalu until that one contested senate presidency against the preferred candidate of their lord and personal saviour.

Why do this people like criminals?

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

Look at this screenshot below very well…

Where did you see sentence before fine?

You can help highlight it for emphasis and clarity.

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.
>

Lol!

The guy has suspended reason and is now operating at a high emotional velocity which clouds his objective abilities.

I just pray he doesn’t lose it at this rate.

He saw something written in clear and elementary English but he’s still arguing.

He’s insisting on what he thinks the constitution said rather than what the constitution said.

Lotanna2:
It is the same thing.a sentence anywhere in the world and sentence is conviction.where is the conviction?

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

What does or stand for here?

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..

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.”

Lotanna2:
Of law or tribunal in Nigeria and all the sentences equals conviction

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

Ikaeniyan0:
It's not a state but will be treated as one of the states in the presidential election

Yeah!

Then after election it will revert to not being state?

All because of Tinubu?

Clap for yourself. You know the law.

ORIENTATION101:
Obidient if Nigeria constitution wanted FCT to be mandatory, they would have simply created another subsection for it to stand out from the state during president election.

Despite two different subsection in the consultation stating clear that fct can be liken to state, Obidient are still looking for compulsory 25%😂😂😂

If the constitution didn’t intend for FCT to be mandatory, why was the provision not left as it was in the 1979 Constitution which is the parent of the 1999 constitution?

Lotanna2:
Was it in Nigeria? Was it a sentence? A sentence comes when you are found guilty

Look again…

Can you see “any court”?

favor914:
Blind Hypocrite Penguin 🐧.

Look at Section 137, subsection (e) of the 1999 constitution as posted by yourself. Did you not see any mention of 10 years there?

More so Section 137, subsection (d) that you are hinging your hopes upon, refers to convictions by a tribunal or court in Nigeria.

Playing smart, but not been clever, more so it refers to conviction & fines by a Nigerian Court.

Go back and finish the subsection D.

How many “OR” can you see?

casualobserver:
People see me see trouble o! I was going to search the web to post the relevant section but the slowpoke above didn’t even realize it is there in the portion of the constitution he posted.

Oga please just cast your eyes down to section E of what you posted and read.

Section D is “under sentence”. That means you are currently serving a sentence I.e community service, imprisonment etc and you have not finished or completed your sentence. Under sentence means your sentence hasn’t been carried out, I.e your prison term has not been served, your fine has not been paid And if you were sentenced to death, you have not been executed. Even if a fine was the sentence once you have paid it, you are no longer under sentence.

Section d and E together means you must not have been convicted and sentenced in the last 10 years (Section E) and any sentence due to a conviction must have been served (section D)


The problem with many of you is English. Something is right in front of you in black and white and you can’t even connect the dots….na wah oh! Your brains are dead…kaput!!!! Unfortunately I don’t think you people will ever be allright.

My friend know this and know peace, If you were convicted for murder 11 years ago and you were sentenced to 10yrs in prison and a fine of N1m. Once you have served your prison sentence ( even if you were released early for good behaviour like Ibori) and paid your fine in full as at the date of filling your forms you can contest for president. It’s there in black and white, thank God na you post the relevant section of the constitution with your own hand.

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.

Shantyken:
Then read e and f of that same chapter/section u quote again

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?

Increase in airfare will favour me and my family 🤓

casualobserver:
Why are you people wasting your time? Even if it was a criminal offense and he was guilty, the law clearly states the offense must have been committed in the 10yrs preceding the election. Can you people not read? It’s there in black and white!!!

All the things. You people are fighting for in the petition are non starters.

I have not heard a single attempt at proving you actually won the election!

1. Irev is irrelevant, the Supreme Court ruled in the Osun state case

2. Certificates etc are pre election matters this has been ruled upon many times. In fact only yesterday it was ruled again in the case of Akwa Ibom governor.

3. The only case that needs to be determined in 25% of FCT and anyone with common sense knows that the Supreme Court can never rule that if a man wins 36 states but doesn’t win Abuja he cannot be president.

You people are wasting your time and giving your supporters false hope.

Again I state, you are not even saying you won.

Lol!

You block your brains from objectivity with tribalism which ends up distorting your cognition and reasoning.

Look at Section 137, subsection (d) of the 1999 constitution below. Did you see any mention of 10 years there?

Una go dey alright las las.

pquaver:
Don't u know what implications means.. Somethings to implies that...

If he was charged for a civil case then he is not a criminal neither did he commit a criminal offence.. What it means is... Drugs is a criminal offence... In USA... If bola wasn't charge for criminal offence i dont know u obidients now became the jury over the matter to force into a criminal case.. Do u know more than FBI?

Was he fined or not?

Sharpsharp00123:
so that means u can lose 36 states n win only Abuja n b declared president?

Meaning a candidate can win all d states n lose only Abuja n will still not b declared president?

Then if that b d case y hold election in other states?
Then y not just hold election in Abuja n we have the winner as president?
Then what is d essence of other states votes?

Is this what you understood from the 1999 constitution?

Curse777:
There is nothing like "pre 1999"

1999 Constitution is a compilation of 1979 constitution and military decree till constitutional conference of 1998 under Abacha


In cases of emergency a Military Administrator takes over power

Please go back to kindergarten.

Do you even know what “pre” means? It means “before”.

So, in my comment that you quoted I meant that Military Administrators were only possible “before 1999 Constitution.”

And you are here telling me that there’s nothing like “pre 1999”. Did Nigeria come into existence in 1999?

And which section of the constitution provides for military administrator takeover in the absence of a governor? What are deputy governors then elected for? Do you even have any idea about line of succession in the constitution?

Come, did you just write your WAEC? If yes, did you not do simple Civic Education?

All this hollowness just to defend Tinubu.

Goodness lord!

Lotanna2:
The argument is inferior to wole's argument.if 25% is needed in fct,then even in a runoff 25% will be needed.it will not stand

If you look at it that way, then spread would also be needed in a run-off. Right?

You are not wiser than the framers of our constitution that have provided for virtually all eventualities.

In their wisdom, they provided for spread and 25% in the FCT in the first round of election, and provided for simple majority in a run-off election.

Those are the letters of the constitution. No conjectures, no extrapolations.

Curse777:



Abuja is a subnational

Having Governors doesn't define a state

All State had Administrator under Military rule



.

Military Administrators were pre-1999 constitution.

Can you name any Military Administrator in any state since 1999?

Again, if having a governor doesn’t define a state, what does?

And can you give example of another ‘state’ (like you guys are referring to FCT) that doesn’t have a governor?

I told some guys here about a week ago that the section 299 that Tinubu lawyers and supporters are hinging on to argue that the FCT is just another state in Nigeria, only referred to the administration of the territory and did not preclude the place of the FCT as one of the provisions that must be satisfied before a presidential candidate is declared.

They argued with me then, but I’m happy to see my argument incorporated by Obi lawyers in their written address in response to Tinubu and Shettima at the tribunal.

Questions for determination:

1) If the FCT is a state (in the sense canvassed for by Tinubu lawyers and supporters) why was there no governorship election in the territory on March 18, 2023 when the rest of Nigerian states had their gubernatorial elections except for those whose election have been staggered?

2) In the 1979 constitution, the condition that a presidential candidate must satisfy before being declared a winner was to “get highest number of votes cast and 25% in 2/3 of the states of the federation.” No mention was made of the FCT which was Lagos then. The question therefore is, if it was not intended that a presidential candidate must score 25% in the FCT, why was that provision attached in the 1999 constitution? Why didn’t the requirement just end with “… and score 25% of votes cast in 2/3 of the states of federation as it was in the 1979 constitution?

3) Because the FCT has no elected governor or mayor, the president appoints a minister who administers the territory on his behalf. Does it not make sense therefore, that man who will appoint the administrator for this territory MUST have at least 25% approval of indigenes and residents of the territory?

The truth is that like is popularly said, the law is a bitch. It cares not about your sentiments and biases, it will serve justice by letters and spirit of the law.

Tinubu did not satisfy the constitutional provision to be declared a winner which makes his declaration null and void.

Fergie001
Lotanna2/Garfield1
Ejimatic et al (if una like sha)

As reported by Nations Newspaper 😏

A criminal Newspaper owned by a criminal.

Good to see the criminals in one side.

Just a Supreme Court ruling favouring Obi, and the whole criminal structure in Nigeria will be dismantled in one fell swoop.

God is plotting a graph.

pquaver:
Where in the world is narcotics then chargedas a civil forfeiture case instead of criminal case.. Zombie.. Una no get critical thinking.. So nacortics according to you now is no longer a criminal offence?

Therefore?🙄

Philgafauto:
This is logical argument. The judges ought to reason that why should a man be willing to forfeit $400k just like that without fighting it on appeal up to the US Supreme Court if he was not guilty of a crime?

But the nomenclature does matter sha. If it is a civil forfeiture, the nature of the activities which produced the illicit proceeds does not or will not matter to a judge. The most important thing is that it has been adjudged by a US Court to be a Civil forfeiture.

That is why law is about logic and reasoning. Well done. I hope it was included in LP written address sha?

Why are you asking me if it was included in Obi’s written address?

Are you not the one that made a post earlier claiming that Obi’s written address is watery? How come you don’t know its content again?

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

Yeah.

He just decided to leave it as Father Christmas abi?

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

So, if VIO or FRSC fines me N5m today fir 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.

The question is was VIO supposed to charge you a whopping N5million for mere traffic offense?

And this is a wrong analogy because Tinubu’s (not his bank account) offense was clearly written in the charge sheet - he was charged for narcotics. There’s nothing comparable between this and traffic offense.

Now, not only was he charged, he was ordered to forfeit a whopping $460,000 dollars and he never protested against it if he was truly innocent.

No legitimate hustler will allow the court confiscate his $10,000 dollars without threatening fire and brimstone, not to talk of when the money is above $400k.

Is Tinubu a Father Christmas?

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?

No. Narcotics is not fraud, narcotics is powder🤓

In fact, it’s dusting powder😎

Una go defend defend defend tire. Tribunal go still sack Tinubu.

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?

Obi told the court that Tinubu had never challenged the US court order in any court of competent jurisdiction since 1993 when the order was made till date.

Peter Obi, the candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 presidential election has asked the Presidential Election Petition Court to uphold the order of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in the case in which President Bola Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) forfeited the sum of $460,000 as proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

In his final written address in response to the final written address of President Tinubu and the Vice President, Kashim Shettima at the 2023 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, Obi told the court that Tinubu had never challenged the US court order in any court of competent jurisdiction since 1993 when the order was made till date.

He said that his submission “is predicated on the decision of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, which ordered 'that the funds in the amount of $460,000 in account 263226700 held by First Heritage Bank in the name of Bola Tinubu represents the proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in financial transactions in violation of 18 USC §1956 and 1957'. The decision encapsulated in the Order is tendered as Exhibit PA5 before this Honourable Court.

“The above Order made by the United States District Court, was sequel to a 'Settlement Order of Claims to Funds held by Heritage Bank and Citibank' wherein Bola Tinubu (2nd Respondent) and others, claimed ownership of the sums in the accounts. The 2nd Respondent till date has not challenged the Order of Forfeiture made by the US Court as shown above.”

Obi noted that it is important to underscore that the Proceeding in Exhibit PA5 above (Forfeiture Proceedings), “the Order was based among under things by the revelation/finding in the Affidavit of Kevin Moss, a Special Agent and investigator on financial crime, money laundering and narcotics trafficking, inter alia that "interviews with investigators from the US Customs Service disclosed that the address at 7504 S. Stewart Avenue is known as a drop-off point for packages from Nigeria that contain white heroin....." and that "in the application to open his account at First Heritage Bank, Illinois, Chicago, "Tinubu (2nd Respondent herein) stated that his address was 7504 South Stewart, Chicago, Illinois."

According to him, “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; or". (Emphasis supplied)."

He added, “We respectfully invite Your Lordships to uphold that the above sub-section, by the use of the word "OR" in the several instances envisaged therein envisages a disjunctive meaning and interpretation for those several instances, as such, the ordinary plain meaning of the sub-section is that a person shall not be qualified for the office of the President if among other things; he is under a fine for any offence involving dishonest of fraud (by whatever name called) of any offence imposed on him by any Court or Tribunal.

“It is submitted that the Order of Forfeiture made against the 2nd Respondent by the US Court as reproduced above, constitutes a fine, and it is in respect of an offence involving dishonest or fraud by a Court.

“With due respect, the submissions on pages 22-25 of the Written Address are incorrect and do not reflect the actual position of the law. It submitted that the misconception of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to the effect that a conviction must exist before a person will be disqualified from contesting for the office of the President, and which said misconception sterns from their unfortunate, albeit, misguided reliance on Section 137 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution. The Petitioners case is not based on Section 137 (1) (e), but rather on the provisions of Section 137 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution.

“The 2nd and 3rd Respondents further attempt to discredit the evidence of PW1, by stating that he visited the United States once in 2003 is of no moment. Exhibit PA5 is documentary evidence which is certified, sealed, notarized and authenticated by the United States Court which issued it.”

He further said, “We urge Your Lordships to disregard the argument of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to the effect that Exhibit PA5 has not been registered in Nigeria, as according to them, such registration is required by the provisions of Section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ordinance and Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act."

He told the court that the Section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ordinance and Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Tinubu and Shettima heavily relied on are completely inapplicable to the instant Petition.

“Respectfully, my Noble Lords, the cardinal question is whether a civil forfeiture under US Law as ordered in Exhibit PA5, can be equated to a fine as used in Section 137 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution. The answer, on settled case law in the US and legal literature is in the affirmative.

“A civil forfeiture in the US amounts to a 'fine' or a 'punitive economic sanction', and it is also "at least partially punitive" against the persons whose property is affected. Why did Timb challenge the forfeiture proceedings if he was not to be personally affected? Can it be honestly argued that the 2nd Respondent herein did not suffer economic sanction when he forfeited 460,000 USD to the US Government?

“It is submitted that, the decision of the US Supreme Court above, ranks superior to the evidence called by the Respondents and the text written by TS Greenburg et al, entitled A Good Practice Guide for Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture (World Bank 2009) 13, cited by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on pages 24-25 of their Final Written Address.

“Respectfully, My Lords, under the Nigerian law, the word "fine" used in Section 137 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, also contemplates an Order of Forfeiture made against the 2nd Respondent.

“Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA), the Interpretation Section defines "fine" as "includes any pecuniary forfeiture or pecuniary compensation payable under this act. Penalty includes any pecuniary fine, cost, forfeiture or compensation recoverable under an order.

“The United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, which made the Order of Fine against the 2nd Respondent, comes within the category of the term 'any court' provided for in section 137 (1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)."

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

Lotanna2:
Why am I not defending mbah? I started supporting otti long before you knew him.prof nnenna actually did nothing,bvas did everything.
You said ladi won,instead of you to show us how he won,you are talking about forged waec.cant you see that you have serious issues? Did waec disclaim his results? My own governor otu,aks gov,sanwoolu and several others have cert issues.does it mean they didn't win? Was Lyon not voted for? Show us how he was rigged out.at least kad and nasarawa pdp are making efforts to show rigging,why is Ogun own different? Ladi is asking for supplementary not outright victy,pay close attention to details and stop vomiting rubbish.Stop setting yourself up for ridicule.if apc rigged in kad,they should have no issue rigging zamfara,is this not commonsense!

Stop supporting evil