NewStats: 3,259,750 , 8,170,799 topics. Date: Sunday, 25 May 2025 at 09:33 PM 2181g

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.

Its obvious u didn't read the petition .

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''

You are partially right in the the primary case was of criminal nature. Investigations revealed that the criminals kept $460k with Tinubu who was not counted as one of the criminals. Typically the prosecutors approached the court to seize the funds and expectedly Tinubu raised no objection to the request because the money was not his. It was a civil case and fully determined and it is not at originating status. I believe that the primary criminal case end as well and the criminals jailed.

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

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.
>

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.
>

I can agree but you will also agree that the constitution is talking about conviction clearly.it states sentence of fraud,dishonesty or fine and sentences are from conviction and there was no conviction

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

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 . 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

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

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.

Tales by the Moonlight…
NOBODY who confesses to criminal homicide under oath in a court of law is let go without an immunity agreement.

So, are you positing that Tinubu had an immunity deal with the US Dept of Justice?!
If so, those are ALWAYS signed agreements, and relative easy documentation evidence to provide.
>

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 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 port expires, citizenship expires.”

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?

To defend Tinubu is not an easy job
The more you look the less you see, what a character.

Penguin2:

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

What does or stand for here?

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

Lotanna2:


Tinubu will make things better

No be observe we all go dey observe??

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.

BluntCrazeMan:




No be observe we all go dey observe??

Four years to go

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.

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 . 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 the USA online matter and they wrote back that Tinubu didn't commit a crime.

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.

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

Comrade comrade I see what you did there

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 . 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 the USA online matter and they wrote back that Tinubu didn't commit a crime.

So many comments on this thread (unfortunately shaped by the OP’s question) miss the point of the LP lawyers noting that the US court order remains un-appealed. Noting that the order was never appealed is NOT an imputation of substantive guilt. Rather, it’s relevance is that where a valid order of a competent court has not been appealed and/or overturned, such an order (which, in this case, the lawyers rightly or wrongly argue is an “imposition of a fine”) remains valid and subsisting for the purposes of Section 137(1)(d).
>

Penguin2:

Look at this screenshot below very well…

Where did you see sentence before fine?

You can help highlight it for emphasis and clarity.

Oga,they don't need to repeat it that is why they said a sentence of imprisonment or fine instead of or a fine.therefore that fine must be from the sentence.in any case,court fines one that has been proven guilty after a trial.a court fine comes from a conviction.
An exparte motion was moved against tinubu and it was granted.an out of court agreement was entered which involves seizure.it was what was agreed by tinubu and us authorities.the court did not fine anyone.

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.

I swear you are daft!!! You don’t even know the meaning of “or”. “Or” means if any of the conditions apply. None of the conditions apply because he is neither “under sentence” nor has he been convicted in the last 10 yrs.

Go and ask a lawyer the meaning of “under sentence”

I swear you people are daft!

Go and look for mike izekhone’s interview yesterday in the Akwa Ibom governors case. Don’t think because a lawyer is taking a case to court, the plaintiff has a case. Very often a lawyer will proceed with a case he knows he cannot win. Either for money or because his client wants him to despite advice.


Listen to Ezekome talk about a lawyer bringing a case to court similar to the same case he brought to court previously and was dismissed previously. ClearLy showing the lawyer knows he is going to lose. When defendants are closing their case in 1 day with 1 witness it shows you have no case. Your case is open and shut, flimsy. Mind you this is the same Ezekome that is usually on PDP or IPOB side o.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3LhwR7EFyw



Nothing more to say!

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

The bolded simply means conviction or a sentence and tinubu is not

Penguin2:

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

Sha 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 port expires, citizenship expires.”

Did atiku prove that he voluntarily acquired the citizenship?

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 eming 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

Trump Inc was just found guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the government and ordered to may 10s of millions in fines....


He is the likely next president of the USA. I hope that clears up the civil forfeiture issues for all. Secondly, there is a statute of limitation for that offence in this country and in the USA - 10yrs.

That's why Hamza El Mustapha can run for office. So onto the next one. Sadly, the court will side with the ruling party on this one

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 . 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.

so what is the 460000 dollars fine for? nothing concern us with the money...if you forsake 5k to frsc for traffic offense...why did tinubu pay a fine up to that amount

FSBoperator:


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

Ok
Got it.

anything that will take a sick old man in pampers out of aso rock is fine by me bro

Lotanna2:


Four years to go

This man seff

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 . 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.

Make sure you have food in your house

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

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 itted 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.

[There's a difference between a fine impose by VIO/FRSC and a court.

The first is a predetermined penalty. You commit this offence, here is the fine. The second, is post consequential penalty where is only determined by a COURT after considering the damages The fine envisaged here by the constitution for disqualification is not VIO/FRSC as not wearing seat beat or a cracked windshield is not dishonesty in itself. *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 . 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:

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?

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