NewStats: 3,261,642 , 8,174,619 topics. Date: Thursday, 29 May 2025 at 09:54 PM 3u312c

Lotanna2:


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.

Lol!

It’s so pathetic that you keep reading the constitution by word instead of reading the entire sentence so you can deduce the meaning of the entire provision.

The constitution said “fine” involving dishonesty or fraud and then went ahead to include “by whatever name called” in a parenthesis.

Is Tinubu’s forfeiture not a proceed of fraud?

If he wasn’t guilty, why seek an out of court settlement? Why not allow the entire proceedings run its course?

aswani:


Does this include parking fines at all?

By the way, President Tinubu wasn't fined, he forfeited monies in his that were proved not his.

Look at subsection D very well again, can you see the phrase in brackets? It reads “by whatever name called”.

So, sorry sir, Tinubu cannot hide under play on words. The constitution envisaged a criminal like him would come.

casualobserver:


You are daft. It’s not abuse, it’s a statement of fact.

T

I have told you the meaning of “under sentence”, if you fail to understand that, you will fail to understand everything else in subSection d.

There is a difference between “sentenced” and “under sentence”. You are sentenced the minute your punishment is pronounced, until you serve your sentence you are “under sentence”, once you serve your sentence, you are no longer “under sentence”.. The more I interact with you Ob1diots the more I understand why such a daft man could have hoodwinked so many people. You are all daft, again I am not saying that to abuse, you people really have a very very low IQ.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/under-sentence-of-imprisonment

“Under sentence of imprisonment means while serving a term of imprisonment, while under a suspended sentence, while on probation or parole, or while on work-release, furlough, escape, or any other type of release or freedom, while or after serving a term of imprisonment, other than unconditioned release and freedom after expiration of term of sentence.”

Read below for an example of the disctinction between people who are under sentence and those have been convicted of an offense but are no longer “under sentence” to understand what it means to be “under sentence”.

https://lawexplores.com/consequences-and-the-perils-of-categorical-ambiguity/

Lol!

Again you degenerated to more insults than logic.

How many times did the word “OR” occur after the phrase “under sentence”?

Is “OR” a disjunct or a conjunct?

And you are yet to point to the 10 years expiry date you alluded to.

That’s what you should be doing, and not throwing insults.

Penguin2:

Lol!

It’s so pathetic that you keep reading the constitution by word instead of reading the entire sentence so you can deduce the meaning of the entire provision.

The constitution said “fine” involving dishonesty or fraud and then went ahead to include “by whatever name called” in a parenthesis.

Is Tinubu’s forfeiture not a proceed of fraud?

If he wasn’t guilty, why seek an out of court settlement? Why not allow the entire proceedings run its course?

You cannot assume guilt,only the court can pronounce it.the court never imposed any fine,sentence or anything on tinubu by whatever nmae called.except you are telling me that patience Jonathan is barred from contesting in future

Penguin2:

Has citizenship ever been imposed on anyone?

If yes, give an instance please.

Citizen by birth,conferment is involuntary.the constitution clearly said voluntarily acquired instead of dual citizenship.ishola vs lp 2012 clearly stated that only renunciation can disq someone

casualobserver:


I have attempted logic with you but it is clear your IQ is too low to handle logic. Anyone capable of critical thinking or basic common sense will know that you can’t be allowed to contest if your offense is over 10 years and at the same time barred from contesting if you’ve been sentenced…does that make sense to you? The reason you don’t get it as well as the 25% in FCT is you have no brains left. Like I said you have to be daft to be an Obidient….very very daft. It is not an insult it is a statement of fact.

Even if you don’t understand the law you have to look at the intent of the law to understand what the law is trying to achieve. What the law says in section E is if you haven’t been convicted in the last 10 years, you have repented of your past crimes and so you are considered a fit and proper member of society. What subsection d say is that if you have not served your sentence, I.e you haven’t paid your fine, served your prison sentence or whatever the sentence may be including execution ( If you were sentenced to death) is that you have not served your punishment and we cannot have a president or governor or senator who we know for sure has been sentenced and may be compromised because he hasn’t paid his fines or is at risk of being jailed or executed. That is the intent of the law.

Lol!

All I see is pain. That’s all!

I’m going to reproduce subsection D of section 137 again so you can look at it again; maybe this time you will look at it more reasonably.

Now, can you see that subsection D is separated from subsection E by a disjunct - “OR”?

What this means is that subsection E does not flow from subsection D nor is it (E) the completion of D.

Only the disqualifying criteria under subsection E has 10 years expiry date.

The disqualifying criteria under subsection D runs ad infinitum without an expiry date.

Stick to the letters of the constitution and not conjectures.

Penguin2:

Look at subsection D very well again, can you see the phrase in brackets? It reads “by whatever name called”.

So, sorry sir, Tinubu cannot hide under play on words. The constitution envisaged a criminal like him would come.

Probably wasting my time but I am in the mood for indulging you today:

"Fines and fees include parking tickets and speeding tickets (including those from traffic cameras), court-imposed fees used to cover istrative costs and other criminal justice-related charges and penalties. A forfeiture is when the police seize property that is believed to be connected to a crime"

The above is from urban.org and shows clearly that Fines and Forfeitures are not interchangeable .

President Tinubu clearly isn't a criminal, at best he at some point associated with criminals whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Continue your crusade, nothing will come out of it sha.

Penguin2:


Lol!

All I see is pain. That’s all!

I’m going to reproduce subsection D of section 137 again so you can look at it again; maybe this time you will look at it more reasonably.

Now, can you see that subsection D is separated from subsection E by a disjunct - “OR”?

What this means is that subsection E does not flow from subsection D nor is it (E) the completion of D.

Only the disqualifying criteria under subsection E has 10 years expiry date.

The disqualifying criteria under subsection D runs ad infinitum without an expiry date.

Stick to the letters of the constitution and not conjectures.

Stop wasting my time. I am not here for going around in circles. If you dont understand the term “under sentence” you dont understand section d.

I have cited many legal sources to explain the term “under sentence” in law but I guess you can’t fix stupid.

Lotanna2:


Citizen by birth,conferment is involuntary.the constitution clearly said voluntarily acquired instead of dual citizenship.ishola vs lp 2012 clearly stated that only renunciation can disq someone

Any instance(s) of involuntary conferment of citizenship?

aswani:


Probably wasting my time but I am in the mood for indulging you today:

"Fines and fees include parking tickets and speeding tickets (including those from traffic cameras), court-imposed fees used to cover istrative costs and other criminal justice-related charges and penalties. A forfeiture is when the police seize property that is believed to be connected to a crime"

The above is from urban.org and shows clearly that Fines and Forfeitures are not interchangeable .

President Tinubu clearly isn't a criminal, at best he at some point associated with criminals whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Continue your crusade, nothing will come out of it sha.

Read your own definition again and take note of the part I underlined.
You
Have you taken note of your definition of forfeiture?

Now, what was Tinubu accused of doing in US court again and what was the outcome?

SledgeHammerer:
Let's even assume the court disqualifies Tinubu, how does that make obi the winner? He came third and didn't show us with figures how he got more lawful votes than Atiku to benefit from that decision. Pure madness!

You guys should get ready to insult the Judges after judgement is delivered.

Since you say he first contested the results and is now contesting Tinubu’s qualification…
That makes BOTH of his arguments CONSISTENT, rather than inconsistent, with each other!
>

casualobserver:

Stop wasting my time. I am not here for going around in circles. If you dont understand the term “under sentence” you dont understand section d.

I have cited many legal sources to explain the term “under sentence” in law but I guess you can’t fix stupid.

Lol!

It’s like asking you, “who is the governor of Lagos State?”

And instead of answering my question, you start to cite sources, telling me about the number of local governments in Lagos and other irrelevant talks unrelated to the question; would these things ever equate to the name of the governor of Lagos State?

SledgeHammerer:
Let's even assume the court disqualifies Tinubu, how does that make obi the winner? He came third and didn't show us with figures how he got more lawful votes than Atiku to benefit from that decision. Pure madness!

You guys should get ready to insult the Judges after judgement is delivered.

Btw, the current Imo State Governor came FOURTH in election results declared by INEC…
The most elementary basis for contesting election results by INEC is that such results are INCORRECT!
>

9jaRealist:


Since you say he first contested the results and is now contesting Tinubu’s qualification…
That makes BOTH of his arguments CONSISTENT, rather than inconsistent, with each other!
>

Don’t mind this people.

that all this their masturbation is on Obi’s reply to Tinubu. Was Tinubu the one that spearheaded the election or managed or announced results that Obi would dwell deeply into analyzing election results with him?

They should wait until they see Obi’s written address to INEC who managed results.

Penguin2:

Any instance(s) of involuntary conferment of citizenship?

Citizenship by birth, marriage (to an extent) conferment/honorary.it is something you never asked or applied for,you didn't swear allegiance to or renounce your citizenship.it is self explanatory.

Penguin2:

Read your own definition again and take note of the part I underlined.
You
Have you taken note of your definition of forfeiture?

Now, what was Tinubu accused of doing in US court again and what was the outcome?

You do realise that for a forfeiture, the actual crime could have been commited by someone else as happened in this case?

President Tinubu had to forfeit the money as it was in his . The person(s) that paid it in and/or the source of the funds were probably fined or convicted or both.

9jaRealist:


Btw, the current Imo State Governor came FOURTH in election results declared by INEC…
The most elementary basis for contesting election results by INEC is that such results are INCORRECT!
>

Go back and check the hope uzodinma case very well. You'll see that he came to the court with figures showing how he won the election and the supreme court agreed with his proof and declared him winner in line with the figures presented.

Where are the figures with which the court will declare obi winner?

9jaRealist:


Since you say he first contested the results and is now contesting Tinubu’s qualification…
That makes BOTH of his arguments CONSISTENT, rather than inconsistent, with each other!
>

He's inconsistent. How more inconsistent can a man be? Claiming victory is totally different from saying your opponent is not qualified. Issues of non qualification are not same as having majority of lawful votes cast.

Lotanna2:


Citizenship by birth, marriage (to an extent) conferment/honorary.it is something you never asked or applied for,you didn't swear allegiance to or renounce your citizenship.it is self explanatory.

Do you consent to marriage or is marriage forced on you?

aswani:


You do realise that for a forfeiture, the actual crime could have been commited by someone else as happened in this case?

President Tinubu had to forfeit the money as it was in his . The person(s) that paid it in and/or the source of the funds were probably fined or convicted or both.

Lol!

Tinubu’s lawyers are in court arguing that indeed Tinubu was fined but it was civil proceedings but you are here arguing that it was his .

Does own itself?

Penguin2:

Do you consent to marriage or is marriage forced on you?

Atiku failed to prove that tinubu voluntarily acquired citizenship.the expired port he tendered is inissible.calling witnesses from guinea would have clarified issues.compare your watery evidence to the nysc vs DSS report in enugu.you have nothing on asiwaju

sharpsecret:
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

It was a forfeiture and not a fine. The USA government seized the $460k belonging to the drug trafficking criminal that put the money in Tinubu's . Tinubu was not fined as it was established that he was not involved in the narcotics biz. So the hovt filed a civil case to seize the funds I Tinubu's .

Penguin2:

Lol!

Tinubu’s lawyers are in court arguing that indeed Tinubu was fined but it was civil proceedings but you are here arguing that it was his .

Does own itself?

Can you please send me the information were President Tinubu's lawyers itted he was fined?

The witness, a Mr Bamidele, claimed the forfeiture was related to a civil and not a criminal case. The witness also itted that the forfeiture was connected to Narcotics dealing case.

Clearly you want to conflate issues and twist things to suit your narrative which I guess is standard fayre for Obidients clutching at straws.

President Tinubu wasn't fined as per the portion of the election eligibility documents you are depending on. He also wasn't convicted of any wrongdoing in that case but of course you knew that already.

seunmsg:


In a criminal matter arising from a trial and conviction.

Don't mind replying to the Obidients again. Firstly, this was a case in USA which the prosecutors who had all the details of the matter didn't convict Tinubu and they have officially established that in 2003 through the response to IGP Tafa then. The USA forfeiture case was to allow govt take the money belonging to the drug criminal that he put in Tinubu's . This is after they have established that Tinubu was innocent in the entire saga.

Penguin2:

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

Did the circle part not referring to Nigerian law? Was the forfeiture made under Nigerian law?. Also, the next section says any conviction must have happened within the last 10 years. This happened 30 years ago. So even if Tinubu was convicted he was now free to contest since the 10 years status bar was over

SledgeHammerer:
He's inconsistent. How more inconsistent can a man be? Claiming victory is totally different from saying your opponent is not qualified. Issues of non qualification are not same as having majority of lawful votes cast.

Both positions are NOT mutually exclusive and therefore are NOT inconsistent with each other..
Saying that you have more legal votes and saying that your opponent is not qualified can BOTH be true.
>

SledgeHammerer:
Go back and check the hope uzodinma case very well. You'll see that he came to the court with figures showing how he won the election and the supreme court agreed with his proof and declared him winner in line with the figures presented.

Where are the figures with which the court will declare obi winner?

But that’s NOT the point you argued…

Instead you argued that Obi came to court in third position, based on INEC results…
Thus I noted that similarly Uzodinma came to court in FOURTH position, based on INEC results.

I am not litigating the substance of the case properly before the tribunal…
But the SUBSTANTIVE point is that electoral position based on INEC results are IRRELEVANT.
>

solreb:
Don't mind replying to the Obidients again. Firstly, this was a case in USA which the prosecutors who had all the details of the matter didn't convict Tinubu and they have officially established that in 2003 through the response to IGP Tafa then. The USA forfeiture case was to allow govt take the money belonging to the drug criminal that he put in Tinubu's . This is after they have established that Tinubu was innocent in the entire saga.

The US court did no such thing…

For starters, US courts do NOT establish the innocence of any party before them (which I am reasonably certain is the same with virtually all other common law jurisdictions). Rather, the courts are limited to ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ determinations. And that it is NOT merely semantic, because a court may determine that a criminal defendant had not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without exonerating such defendant (eg, in hung jury trials), or while even proffering that such defendant would be guilty on a probability burden.

In this case, the US court most definitely did not find Tinubu (the only individual name appearing in the listed defendants) ‘not guilty’ because if it did then the said amount would not have been forfeited. Meanwhile, while related, this case and any other case against the actual drug peddlers are NOT dependent upon each other. A verdict in one criminal case dies not control the verdict in a disparate case.

My counsel to folks on this thread (which is largely an academic exercise) is to await the tribunal’s verdict.
>

solreb:

It was a forfeiture and not a fine. The USA government seized the $460k belonging to the drug trafficking criminal that put the money in Tinubu's . Tinubu was not fined as it was established that he was not involved in the narcotics biz. So the hovt filed a civil case to seize the funds I Tinubu's .

so why has tinubu refused to protest his seized money....even not for seizing sake but to exonerate himself...you are talking about traffic offense,if you are innocent and frsc or vio fine you 5k and not only that the negative effect of the fine keeps affecting you in the future...won't you go extra mile to claim your innocence

aswani:


The Tribunal are not interested in the money being legit or not, they want to see indisputable proof of Conviction because the constitution is clear about convicted people contesting for Presidency.

That is why it is a court of law and not a viewing centre where the loudest people win the argument, you bring your proof and it is deliberated on, chikena.

The relevant part, which I saw in the constitution was:
....“A SENTENCE of Imprisonment OR FINE for any Offence INVOLVING dishonesty or fraud (by whatever name called)”...
==>>Section-137(1)(d)

Thus,,.. There Was “A SENTENCE OF FINE” On Tinubu.
....
...
You're here talking about CONVICTION.??
No wahalla..
Section-137(1)(e) is a totally different section.
Its application cannot be superimposed into Section-137(1)(d).
...
A “SENTENCE” is totally different from A “CONVICTION”..

BluntCrazeMan:

Thus,,.. There Was “A SENTENCE OF FINE” On Tinubu.
....

No there wasn't, please go to urban.org to see the different definitions of "a Fine" and "a Forfeiture".

I posted it in a conversation I was having with Penguin2 less than 10 hours ago and am now too lazy to go and find it to repost it.