NewStats: 3,261,541 , 8,174,326 topics. Date: Thursday, 29 May 2025 at 03:25 PM 2gz6f

9jaRealist:


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.
>

My position has been consistent. Go back and check. You're saying based on INEC results abi? So where's his own results to dispute that of INEC? That's where the uzodinma case you mentioned is different.

You came third and want the disqualification of who came first. So how do you benefit from that decision if granted? When you don't have any figure before the court that suggest you got more votes than the person placed second.

See there's a reason obi abandoned his original stance of "I won the election". He knows he never won that election and there's no evidence to prove he did. Dem dey use una stay relevant. Lol 🤣🤣

LADEMINUS:



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

Al mustapha was pardoned,that is like he was never convicted,reason he could stand for elections

Lotanna2:

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

All asked for was an example of involuntary conferment of citizenship on anyone apart from citizenship by birth, but you have provided it.

Lemme know when you have that example.

Until then, what you people are doing now is trying to wriggle out through technicalities. That’s why you are talking about expired document (port in this case) not being issible, and calling of the president of Guinea to stand as witness.

But let’s see how far technicalities will take Tinubu.

SledgeHammerer:



My position has been consistent. Go back and check. You're saying based on INEC results abi? So where's his own results to dispute that of INEC? That's where the uzodinma case you mentioned is different.

You came third and want the disqualification of who came first. So how do you benefit from that decision if granted? When you don't have any figure before the court that suggest you got more votes than the person placed second.

See there's a reason obi abandoned his original stance of "I won the election". He knows he never won that election and there's no evidence to prove he did. Dem dey use una stay relevant. Lol 🤣🤣

Uzodimma never approached the court with a figure. He only went with the number of polling units canceled which was 388.

It was when the Supreme Court agreed with him that they added the figures in the 388 results sheet and declared Uzodimma.

Again, in that Uzodimma case, did he the candidates that came 2nd and 3rd like you lots have been suggesting that Obi should have ed Atiku in his suit?

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.

Oga FORFEITURE is a crime, according to Nigeria's supreme court.

Penguin2:

Uzodimma never approached the court with a figure. He only went with the number of polling units canceled which was 388.

It was when the Supreme Court agreed with him that they added the figures in the 388 results sheet and declared Uzodimma.

Again, in that Uzodimma case, did he the candidates that came 2nd and 3rd like you lots have been suggested Obi should have ed Atiku in his suit?

Don't mind those headless chickens

solreb:

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

What the next section says is irrelevant to the case at hand because the petitioners filed their suit under the authority of Section 137 subsection 1 D.

Now, that subsection made no mention of 10 years expiry date.

Again, that your “next section” is not a follow up nor the completion of Subsection D.

So, 10 years talk is only in your imagination.

aswani:


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.

And narcotics is what?

Baby food?

You guys aren’t ashamed of association of your candidate with narcotics?

Is narcotics Cerelac?

Nakedtruths:

Oga FORFEITURE is a crime, according to Nigeria's supreme court.

Have you got proof of this?

Anyway, forfeiture is clearly not a crime in US where the the incident happened so Nigeria's Supreme court can't interpret it as one.

Penguin2:

All asked for was an example of involuntary conferment of citizenship on anyone apart from citizenship by birth, but you have provided it.

Lemme know when you have that example.

Until then, what you people are doing now is trying to wriggle out through technicalities. That’s why you are talking about expired document (port in this case) not being issible, and calling of the president of Guinea to stand as witness.

But let’s see how far technicalities will take Tinubu.

There is no technicality here son except you don't know what technicality is.examplevof technicality atiku harping on the grammatical blunder where inec said atiku won in 21 States.whenever atiku subpoena someone from guinean immigration,let us know.

Penguin2:

And narcotics is what?

Baby food?

You guys aren’t ashamed of association of your candidate with narcotics?

Is narcotics Cerelac?

First off, I am not associated to President Tinubu. I didn't even vote for him.

Secondly, what exactly are you responding to in my post regarding your reference to Narcotics and Cerelac? You shouldn't reallt be jumping from one thing to another willy nilly or without giving proper context if you must.

My last post was about President Tinubu not being fined, when did I talk about narcotics?

surgical:
Al mustapha was pardoned,that is like he was never convicted,reason he could stand for elections

Thank you Sir for falling into the trap

A state pardon as granted to Al Mustapha, is a confirmation that he is guilty. It is not "like he was never convicted"

It is actually a confirmation that he accepts he is guilty. People have been known to reject state pardons because they want to prove thier innocence.

But the statute of limitations in the electoral law says 10 yrs. Or are you not aware that ppl like
abiodun and gbaja have convictions to Thier names from abroad?

aswani:


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.

No wahalla..


I'm happy that we are now asking whether a forfeiture is a fine....


And no more asking whether there was a conviction.

LADEMINUS:



But the statute of limitations in the electoral law says 10 yrs.

You say Electoral Law.??

Which Law exactly.??
And what section.??

BluntCrazeMan:
No wahalla..

I'm happy that we are now asking whether a forfeiture is a fine....

And no more asking whether there was a conviction.

Ah but there was no Conviction either, a Conviction is not a Forfeiture. A Fine, like an imprisonment, is a Conviction though.

aswani:


Ah but there was no Conviction either, a Conviction is not a Forfeiture. A Fine, like an imprisonment, is a Conviction though.

Hehehe..

CIVIL FORFEITURE IN THE US

Civil forfeiture allows the government (typically the police) to seize — and then keep or sell — any property that is allegedly involved in a crime or illegal activity. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. The government does not have to charge the property owner with any specific crime in order to seize the property, and must prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is legally forfeitable.

After property has been seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner, who must prove that the property was not involved in nor obtained as a result of illegal activity.

While the government views civil forfeiture as a powerful tool against the drug trade, organized crime, and political corruption, it is often criticized as an unconstitutional exercise of government power.


Proponents argue that it is effective in thwarting criminal organizations by efficiently and directly harming suspected criminals economically while helping law enforcement financially.

But Critics argue that innocent owners can become entangled in the process where they are already presumed guilty instead of being presumed innocent. Critics also argue that the incentives could lead to corruption and law enforcement misbehavior and abuse.

Source: Cornell Law School..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture



Thus,, for him not to prove himself NOT-GUILTY as required by Law,, then, he remained Guilty..

SledgeHammerer:
My position has been consistent. Go back and check. You're saying based on INEC results abi? So where's his own results to dispute that of INEC? That's where the uzodinma case you mentioned is different.

You came third and want the disqualification of who came first. So how do you benefit from that decision if granted? When you don't have any figure before the court that suggest you got more votes than the person placed second.

See there's a reason obi abandoned his original stance of "I won the election". He knows he never won that election and there's no evidence to prove he did. Dem dey use una stay relevant. Lol 🤣🤣

Again, I am not litigating matters properly before the tribunal…
But if Tinubu is disqualified, the election would be re-run if none of the other candidates got the constitutional spread.

The reason for challenging a PROCESS (even instead of a result) is…
If the PROCESS is flawed, the “results” from such flawed process is rendered IRRELEVANT and an entirely new PROCESS ensures.
>

Penguin2:

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?

Was tinubu fined or the illegal money suspected to be from drugs was forfeited from his ?

Penguin2:

Uzodimma never approached the court with a figure. He only went with the number of polling units canceled which was 388.

It was when the Supreme Court agreed with him that they added the figures in the 388 results sheet and declared Uzodimma.

Again, in that Uzodimma case, did he the candidates that came 2nd and 3rd like you lots have been suggesting that Obi should have ed Atiku in his suit?

So 388 is an alphabet not figures

BluntCrazeMan:
Hehehe..



Source: Cornell Law School..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture



Thus,, for him not to prove himself NOT-GUILTY as required by Law,, then, he remained Guilty..

The money was forfeited because it was in President Tinubu's , most likely paid in by a third party or he himself would have faced stiffer penalties.

The person that paid it in cannot forfeit the amount because the money is not in that person's .

It’s not his money that was seized, albeit in his , so he has nothing to prove regarding the true source of the money.

If the person(s) that owned or paid the monies into President Tinubu's ever tried to contest for a Presidency against Peter Obi in the future, feel free to quote the contents of the link against them.

Re: Appeal Court Voids Order On E-Transmission Of Election Results In Lagos
https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/7774904/appeal-court-voids-order-e-transmission
Happy Sunday obidatti

BluntCrazeMan:
You say Electoral Law.??

Which Law exactly.??
And what section.??

My error. Penal code

aswani:


The money was forfeited because it was in President Tinubu's , most likely paid in by a third party or he himself would have faced stiffer penalties.

The person that paid it in cannot forfeit the amount because the money is not in that person's .

It’s not his money that was seized, albeit in his , so he has nothing to prove regarding the true source of the money.

If the person(s) that owned or paid the monies into President Tinubu's ever tried to contest for a Presidency against Peter Obi in the future, feel free to quote the contents of the link against them.

See stumbling..


I just explained to you what Civil Forfeiture means.

And you started staggering.


The property was forfeited as a form of fine.
And the owner was specifically named.
It's up to the owner to prove that the source of the property was genuine, and get it back.

No need twisting this

BluntCrazeMan:
See stumbling..

I just explained to you what Civil Forfeiture means.

And you started staggering.

The property was forfeited as a form of fine.
And the owner was specifically named.
It's up to the owner to prove that the source of the property was genuine, and get it back.

No need twisting this

Not stumbling, just explaining the circumstances and how your narrow narrative doesn't fit.

A forfeition is not a fine, that should be clear by now.

President Tinubu clearly wasn't the owner of the money, why should he try and get it back?

Are you sure you are an Obidient, we've been going back and forth a few times now and you haven't insulted me yet?

aswani:


Not stumbling, just explaining the circumstances and how your narrow narrative doesn't fit.

A forfeition is not a fine, that should be clear by now.

President Tinubu clearly wasn't the owner of the money, why should he try and get it back?

Are you sure you are an Obidient, we've been going back and forth a few times now and you haven't insulted me yet?

That's the problem with you guys.

Bad character attracts bad character.

You've been attracting IPOB miscreants to yourself, and you call them Obidients.


The true Obidients do not have bad character.
If you want to meet true Obidients,, bring up good topics for discussion.
Even strong topics if you like.
And you will get your brains razzled as you try to defend your point..





Obidients are not IPOB apologists or sympathizers..
Know this and know peace.

BluntCrazeMan:


That's the problem with you guys.

Bad character attracts bad character.

You've been attracting IPOB miscreants to yourself, and you call them Obidients.

The true Obidients do not have bad character.
If you want to meet true Obidients,, bring up good topics for discussion.
Even strong topics if you like.
And you will get your brains razzled as you try to defend your point..

Obidients are not IPOB apologists or sympathizers..
Know this and know peace.

You've made some excellent points here and as a consequence, I will have to re-evaluate my very low opinion of Obidients.

Or maybe you are just an exception to the Obidient rule, that's possible too

aswani:


Have you got proof of this?

Anyway, forfeiture is clearly not a crime in US where the the incident happened so Nigeria's Supreme court can't interpret it as one.

That's what obi/labour party lawyers have been able to prove through senator bamidele. FORFEITURE is the keyword

aswani:


You've made some excellent points here and as a consequence, I will have to re-evaluate my very low opinion of Obidients.

Or maybe you are just an exception to the Obidient rule, that's possible too

Try and meet the true Obidients.
We plenty here on this Nairaland sef.


And the sensible APC ers enjoy engaging with us, almost on daily basis

aswani:


First off, I am not associated to President Tinubu. I didn't even vote for him.

Secondly, what exactly are you responding to in my post regarding your reference to Narcotics and Cerelac? You shouldn't reallt be jumping from one thing to another willy nilly or without giving proper context if you must.

My last post was about President Tinubu not being fined, when did I talk about narcotics?

The forfeiture that Tinubu suffered, where was it from?

Penguin2:

The forfeiture that Tinubu suffered, where was it from?

What has that got to do with forfeiture not being a fine or conviction?

I am not associated in any way with President Tinubu. I am only interested in Obidients not flooding this place with false news, that is what I challenge them on.

aswani:


What has that got to do with forfeiture not being a fine or conviction?

I am not associated in any way with President Tinubu. I am only interested in Obidients not flooding this place with false news, that is what I challenge them on.

What aspect of “by whatever name called” is ambiguous to you?

Penguin2:

What aspect of “by whatever name called” is ambiguous to you?

You saw the prefacing with "sentence of imprisonment or fine", àbi?

President Tinubu can commit as much fraud and move as much drugs as possible, as long as there is no sentence of imprisonment or fine, going by what you have shown from the constitution, it doesn't apply to him.