My Blog

Category: Politics Lite

  • Appeal Court restores Adebutu, PDP’s vote buying claims against Abiodun, APC

    The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, on Wednesday restored the vote-buying allegations made by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)and its governorship candidate, Oladipupo Adebutu against Dapo Abiodun of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The appellate court gave the ruling in an appeal marked: CA/IB/EPT/GOV/OG/03/2023, filed by Adebutu and PDP on the 6th of July, 2023, which was heard on August 3, 2023.

    The appeal was against the ruling of Justice A.  Kanuza of the Ogun State Governorship Tribunal delivered on June 19, 2023, on vote buying during the March 18, Governorship election in Ogun State.

    The Tribunal had ruled in favour of the 2nd respondent and struck out the petitioner’s reply to the 2nd respondent’s reply to the petition.

    But on Wednesday, the Court of Appeal panel in a judgement written by Justice M. B Idris and read by Justice Aliyu Waziri, sustained paragraphs 2, 4,5,6,10,11,14,15,16 and 18 of Adebutu and PDP’s (Petitioners) reply to the 2nd respondent’s reply to the petition.

    The sustained paragraphs of the petitioners’ reply bother on the submission of forged certificate to the 1st respondent (INEC) by the 2nd respondent (Dapo Abiodun), violence and disruption of polling units by agents of the 2nd respondent and allegation of vote buying by the 2nd respondent.

    Also, the sustained paragraphs include the petitioners defence on the allegation of vote buying raised by the 2nd respondent in his reply to the petition.

    At the tribunal, Counsel to the Petitioners, Chief Gordy Uche, SAN had argued that the petitioners did not raise any new fact in their reply but gave a response to the new issue raised by the 2nd respondent in his reply which was not part of the issues raised in the petition. 

    Recall that in the ruling, the Chairman of the Ogun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, Justice Kunaza had, while delivering his ruling on a motion filed by the 2nd respondent, Dapo Abiodun seeking the tribunal to strike out the Petitioner’s reply to the 2nd Respondent’s reply to the petition on the grounds that the Petitioners (Ladi Adebutu & PDP) held that the Petitioners cannot raise new fact in their response to the reply of the 2nd respondent.

    Some details of the sustained paragraphs are as follows: “The Petitioners deny paragraph 4 of the 2nd Respondent’s Reply and state that the submission of a forged certificate to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent along with his Form EC9 can be lawfully challenged before this Honourable Tribunal under

    Section 134 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the Petitioners and the said complaint is not statute barred.

    “The Petitioners in specific response to the above paragraphs state that it was rather the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, whose agents were captured on tape recording before and during the election distributing cash in Ogun State Government envelopes to entice voters to vote for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

    “The tape recording was widely distributed on social media and was publicly aired on Arise News Channel on February 19, 2023, and can be accessed via https//yout.be/CN19pKa3DVg. The Petitioners hereby plead and shall at the trial rely on the video clips and media reports of the and 3rd Respondents’ vote buying.

    “The 2nd and 3rd Respondents took advantage of the Naira redesign controversy and the prevailing cash crunch to offer Naira in cash to the electorate. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents shared old Naira notes and when some of the beneficiaries were worried that they were being given old notes, the agents of the 2nd Respondent assured them that the 2nd Respondent who is the Governor would compel the banks to accept them.

    “The Petitioners plead and shall rely on photographs and video recordings where the agents of the 2nd Respondent were caught on tape distributing Nara cash notes to the electorate.

    “Again, on March 18, 2023, when the Governorship and House of Assembly Elections were held across Ogun State, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents caused to be distributed to the electorate pre-loaded top-up gift cards of A5, 000 and N10, 000 to buy their votes to financially influence the 2nd Respondent to win the governorship election.

    “These Top up gift cards with PINS and Serial Numbers could either be used to buy airtime by dialling *979*PIN# or could be used to withdraw or transfer cash by dialling *979*SPID* ACCOUNT NUMBER* PIN#. These were deployed massively and widely on Election Day to buy votes. These cards were distributed on Election Day by APC agents who also had Point of Sale (POS) Machines which were used to either buy airtime and data, collect cash, or cause the amount preloaded in the accounts to be sent to voters’ accounts. The Petitioners plead and shall rely on these pre-loaded cards at the hearing of this Petition.

    “The Petitioners state that the 1st Petitioner’s Family only shared endowment cards at the burial ceremonies as burial ceremonial souvenirs of his philanthropic and benevolent mother, late Chief Mrs. Caroline Oladunni Adebutu, through her Endowment Schemes which were in existence in her lifetime and which she had utilized in mass empowerment programs. The 2nd Respondent is aware of this fact as he was personally in attendance during the said burial as a guest of the 1st Petitioner’s father, Chief Kessington Adebukunola Adebutu. The said cards had nothing whatsoever to do with vote buying or inducement of voters to vote for the Petitioners, and had nothing to do with the election.

    “The election in the polling units listed in paragraph 9 of the 2nd Respondent’s Reply to the Petition were cancelled due to violent disruptions by the agents of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents when the envisaged that the 2nd Respondent was not likely to win in those polling units and also due to over voting and not as a result of wilful disruption of election materials and resistance to the use of BVAS nor any act of the Petitioners. The Petitioners state that the allegation of wilful disruption of election materials and resistance to the use of VAS by the voters is false and afterthought of the Respondents.

    “The Petitioners deny paragraph 30 of the 2nd Respondent’s Reply and state that neither the Petitioners nor their agents were involved in the procurement or distribution of customised pre-paid Verve ATM Cards neither was any of the Petitioners’ agents apprehended by law enforcement agents for any offences whatsoever during or after the conduct of the election.

    “The Petitioners categorically state that none of the Petitioners’ agents could have made any statement to law enforcement agents that the Petitioners instructed, knew or consented to any act of vote buying as mischievously claimed by the 2nd Respondent.”

  • LP crisis deepens as new factional exco emerges in Lagos

    The crisis within the Labour Party (LP) has escalated further as the Alhaji Lamidi Apapa-led factional National Working Committee (NWC) officially inaugurated a rival 24-member caretaker State Working Committee (SWC) for Lagos State.

    This move comes amidst the emergence of a separate faction led by Prince Olumide Adesoyin, intensifying the turmoil within the party.

    The faction, led by Alhaji Lamidi Apapa has publicly disowned the Executive Committee led by Mrs. Dayo Ekong, which steered the party during the 2023 general elections under the leadership of Mr. Julius Abure.

    The recent inauguration of the Adesoyin-led LP State Working Committee by Apapa marks his resolve to assert control over the party’s affairs.

    Apapa, along with other NWC members, emphasized the party’s commitment to adhering to legal processes and underlined that no individual is exempt from the law’s constraints.

    Apapa stated unequivocally, “Labour Party will not tolerate any acts of indiscipline or illegality. Our allegiance to the rule of law is the foundation of our present position. Those who choose not to align with us should know that our journey is onward. We invite them to join us, as we seek to broaden our support.”

    He highlighted the grievances with former National Chairman, Mr. Julius Abure, alleging that he assumed a position above the law.

    Legal interventions have restrained Abure from assuming the National Chairman role, thereby validating Apapa’s leadership claim.

    Asserting his position, Apapa clarified that his ascendancy to the role of Acting National Chairman was a result of destiny, nature, and rightful procedure rather than a personal pursuit for power. He also emphasized the string of court victories his NWC has secured in the Federal High Court and the Appeal Court.

    With regards to the upcoming off-cycle governorship elections, Apapa reassured party members that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would ultimately acknowledge the candidate list produced through the faction’s primaries. Apapa argued that INEC, being an institution governed by law, is bound to uphold their legitimate candidate list.

    While saying that he’s not opposed to reconciliation, Apapa underscored the importance of adhering to legal pathways.

    Meanwhile, Adesoyin, in his inaugural address, asserted his team’s authority over the party’s state affairs, emphasizing their commitment to navigating the party through this tumultuous period.

    Apapa’s leadership has been heralded by Mr. Abass Aroyeun, the National Vice Chairman (South West), who sees Apapa as breathing new life into the party. Aroyeun urged party supporters nationwide to remain steadfast in their support of Apapa’s NWC for the party’s eventual success.

    The newly inaugurated SWC members include key figures such as Messrs. Omotayo Anjorin, Olanrewaju Ibrahim, Kayode Yusuf, Felix Odusanya, Peter Olusegun, Nnaemeka Anajemba, Richard Oliseyenum, Azubike Peters, Akinrele Abioye, Kunle Okunola, Ademola Hassan, Abass Ibrahim, Dupe Awe, Elliot Ebije, and Samad Okufuwa, among others.

    The event saw the attendance of LGA and Ward Chairmen of the Labour Party, along with various stakeholders loyal to Apapa, including Chief Moshood Salvador. Notable acting NWC members also participated in the event, including Mr. Abayomi Arabambi, Alhaji Saleh Lawan, Prince Favour Reuben, and Alhaji Mohammed Alkali, reinforcing Apapa’s support within the party’s leadership ranks.

  • Tribunal reserves judgment in petitions against Sanwo-Olu’s re-election

    Lagos State Election Petition Tribunal has reserved judgment in two petitions against the election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, and his deputy, Dr Obafemi Hamzat.

    The three-man tribunal led by Justice Arum Ashom, on Saturday, said it would communicate the date for the judgment to the parties in the petition.

    Ashom made this known after counsel to the parties adopted final written addresses.

    Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party (LP) and Abdulazeez Adeniran (a.k.a. Jandor) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is challenging the re-election of Sanwo-Olu and Hazmat of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is the first respondent in the petition, while Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat are the second and third respondents, respectively.

    APC is the fourth respondent.

    The governorship election took place on March 18.

    The two petitioners were absent in court on Saturday but Hamzat was present.

    Sanwo-Olu’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), while adopting his final written address, asked the court to dismiss the petitions for lack of merit.

    He described the petitions as an academic exercise.

    He said that there was no reference to the second respondent in the addresses of the petitioners, adding that the addresses dwelt on the third respondent.

    “They have abandoned their petitions and also abandoned any issues against the second respondent.”

    He said that the non-qualification of the deputy governor for the election as claimed by Rhodes-Vivour had no substance.

    Olanipekun argued that the allegation of Hamzat’s renunciation of Nigerian citizenship and swearing an oath of allegiance to the U.S. were not sufficiently proven.

    Similarly, counsel to APC, Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), submitted that the argument about Hamzat’s citizenship was not duly proven by the petitioners.

    Counsel to INEC, Mr. Charles Edosonwan (SAN), in adopting his final written address, asked the Tribunal to dismiss the petitions for lack of evidence.

    He said: “One of the issues raised by the petitioners is whether the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act.

    “We say that they have provided no scintilla of proof to show it wasn’t.

    “A petition erected on such an allegation was sought to be proven by 10 witnesses in a state that has 13,325 polling units. The petition is materially challenged,” he said.

    Mr Olatunji Benson, counsel to LP and its Governorship Candidate, Rhodes-Vivour, asked the tribunal to uphold the position of his clients that Hamzat did not qualify to contest the election.

    He prayed the tribunal to remove Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat from office and declare Rhodes-Vivour the Governor of Lagos State.

    Also adopting his final written address, counsel to PDP, Mr Clement Onwuenwunor, argued that Sanwo-Olu did not have a secondary school leaving certificate and, therefore, was not qualified to be governor. 

  • Impeachment Saga: Court adjourns Edo Dep Gov Shuaibu’s suit

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Thursday adjourned till August 22, hearing in the suit filed by the Edo State Deputy Governor, Phillip Shuaibu over an alleged plan by the State governor, Godwin Obaseki to impeach him from office.

    The court insisted on the earlier order that status quo ante bellum be maintained by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), State Security Service (SSS), Obaseki, Speaker, Edo State House of Assembly and the Chief Judge of Edo state, who are listed as defendants respectfully in the suit.

    At the last adjourned date, Justice Mohammed ordered the respondents to appear before him, Thursday, to show cause why they should not be permanently restrained from impeaching the Edo State deputy governor.

    However, when the matter was called on Thursday, counsel to the plaintiff, George Ibrahim, informed the court that the first and second defendants did not file any affidavit to show cause as directed by the court.

    Responding, counsel to the second defendant (SSS) Harold I. told the court that the service only filed a counter affidavit to the originating summons of the plaintiff.

    He said, “We are contending that we ought not to have been brought before the court, that is why we found it not necessary to show cause, as we have no business in the matter. We are waiting for the substantive application.”

    The trial Judge however admonished the counsel that he should have, at least filed the process first and then mentioned his grievances in the said process for the court to take note of.

    Although, the Inspector General of Police (IGP) was not represented in court, Justice Mohammed however adjourned the matter till August 22 and urged the SSS to file its affidavit to the order to show cause, parties should maintain status -quo ante bellum and that hearing notice be served on all the parties in the matter.

    Shuaibu, in his originating summons, is praying the Court to determine whether, in view of the provisions of sections 186 and 193 of the 1999 Constitution, Governor Obaseki has the power to instigate the IGP and SSS to prevent him from accessing his office to carry out his Constitutionally guaranteed duties.

    He is also asking the court to ascertain whether the Governor has power to instigate the Speaker and the Chief Judge to commence impeachment proceedings against him with a view to remove him from office on any other ground other than allegations of misconduct as contained in section 188 of the 1999 Constitution, among others.

    The trial Judge had, on August 4, issued a temporary restraining order while ruling in a motion on notice filed by Shuaibu asking the court to stop the move to ease him out of office by his principal.

  • Court halts Obaseki’s move to impeach Deputy Gov, Shuaib

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki’s Deputy, Comrade Phillip Shuaib to maintain status quo in a suit seeking to sack the latter.

    The order is following a motion on notice filed by Shuaib praying the court to stop the move to ease him out of office by his principal over their irreconcilable differences.

    In the ruling on the motion argued by Moses Ebute SAN from the Chambers of Chief Ogwu James Onoja SAN in Abuja, Justice Mohammed directed the parties in the suit to maintain “Status Quo Ante Bellum”.

    The order for the status quo ante bellum  released on Friday, is to be in force till the time the defendants shall show cause as directed in another ruling of of the Court made on July 27th, 2023.

    By the order of ‘status quo ante bellum’, parties are to remain in the positions  they were before Shuaib’s suit marked FHC/ABJ/ CS/1027/2023  was instituted against the defendants.

    The defendants are the Inspector General of Police (IGP), State Security Service (SSS), Edo Governor, Godwin Obaseki, Speaker, Edo State House of Assembly and the Chief Judge, Edo State as 1st to 5th respondents, respectfully.

    At the Friday’s proceedings, the Speaker, Edo State House of Assembly was represented by his counsel, Okotie Eboh while the Chief Judge was represented by  Francis Ogbe both who opposed granting of Shuaib’s request but lost in the Court’s ruling.

    Justice Mohammed after the ruling shifted hearing in the matter till August 10 and ordered that the IGP, SSS and Obaseki who were not represented in court be served with hearing notices.

    Shaibu, in his originating simmons prayed the Court to determine whether in view of the provisions of sections 186 and 193 of the 1999 Constitution, Governor Obaseki has power to instigate the IGP and SSS to harass, intimidate, molest and prevent him from accessing his office to carry out his Constitutionally guaranteed duties.

    He also asked the court to ascertain whether the Governor has power to instigate the Speaker and the Chief Judge to commence impeachment proceedings against him with a view to remove him from office on any other ground other than allegations of misconduct as contained in section 188 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The Deputy Governor further prayed the Court to decide whether in view of the provisions of section 193 of the 1999 Constitution, Obaseki can deliberately refuse to carry him along or informing him of the State Executive Council (SEC) Meeting or any other meetings or functions within and outside Edo without violating the express provision of the law.

    Upon positive resolutions of the issues in his favour, Shuaib asked the court to declare that the IGP, SSS and Obaseki lacked power to intimidate, harass, embarrass or molest him.

    He also sought Court’s declaration that Obaseki, Speaker and the Chief Judge lacked power to impeach him on any ground other than gross misconduct and that the Speaker and the Chief Judge at the same time,  lacked requisite power to set up a 7-Man panel of Inquiry on the same ground.

    Among others, Shuaib requested for order of injunction restraining IGP, SSS and Obaseki and their agents and privies from harassing, embarrassing,, intimidating and preventing them from stopping him to carry out his legitimate functions.

    He further prayed for an order of injunction restraining Obaseki, Speaker and Chief Judge from taking any action, plan or step on the impeachment plan and another order specifically stopping the Chief Judge from taking instructions from Obaseki and the Speaker to set up any panel of Inquiry for the purpose of impeaching him.

  • Atiku’s insistence on FCT 25% votes illogical, absurd – INEC, Tinubu 

    *25% votes mandatory, Atiku insists 

    President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have described the 25 percent of votes in the country’s capital insistence as absurd and illogical.

    At the resumed sitting of the presidential tribunal for the adoption of final addresses by different parties, the Respondents urged the court to dismiss Peter Obi and Atiku Atiku’s petitions as completely lacking in merit.

    The Petitioner Atiku Abubakar had urged the court to hold that he scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the February 25 polls while declaring that Tinubu’s alleged academic, court, and diplomatic records were enough to disqualify him from running for office.

    Responding, INEC maintained that the petitioners failed completely to discharge the burden placed on them by law against President Bola Tinubu’s victory.

    INEC’s lead counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud SAN, argued that the arguments of the petitioner’s case are non-compliance with the Electoral Act, INEC Regulations and Guidelines, and the use of technology in the election.

    On the 25% votes of the FCT, INEC insisted that the claim is illogical and absurd, adding that it will create a situation where FCT voters would be given special status above other Nigerians living in other states.

    Further in his adumbration, Mahmoud submitted that in evidence shows that accreditation and authentication of voters was effective and that the technical glitches cited by Atiku happened for about 4 hours but were resolved.

    Concluding, INEC added that the technical glitches did not affect the outcome of the presidential election.

    “Pieces of evidence adduced by the Petitioners showed that the BVAS actually did the work of capturing the image of the results band transmission to the INEC IREV.

    “They have failed woefully to establish that there was human interference in the technical glitches that happened on Election Day.”

    “The petitioners constructed certain things in their minds to which they failed to prove,” Mahmoud.

    President Tinubu on his part asked the court to dismiss Atiku’s petition for lacking in merit.

    Adopting his final addresses, Tinubu, through his counsel Wole Olanipekun SAN, insisted that uploading of polling unit results to INEC Results Viewing Portal, IReV, places no obligation on INEC regarding collation of results but was just for public view.

    Specifically, Tinubu submitted that there was no line in the Atiku’s’ final address stating how many votes Atiku Abubakar actually scored, adding that documents PDP tendered were dumped on the court and it is not the duty of the court to do an investigation of those documents.

    Therefore, he urged the court to dismiss Atiku’s petition and uphold Tinubu’s victory.

    “Your Lordships are not Father Christmas” to give parties whatever they want.

    Olanipekun also argued that it will lead to “absurdity” to interpret the 1999 Constitution without looking at all the sections talking about FCT.

    “FCT is the 37 state in Nigeria for the purpose of the presidential election,” Olanipekun said.

    Meantime, Justice Haruna Tsammani, reserved judgement for a later date that will be communicated to the parties.

  • Presidential Tribunal: Atiku, Obi, Tinubu to present final addresses

    The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja is nearing the conclusion of its proceedings, with Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) set to adopt their final written addresses on Tuesday.

    These addresses precede the judgment date for all petitions related to the February 25 presidential election, including the challenge against President Bola Tinubu’s victory.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election, with 8,794,726 votes, defeating Atiku Abubakar who secured 6,984,520 votes and Mr. Obi with 6,101,533 votes.

    Disputing the results, both Atiku and Obi filed separate petitions, claiming victory and challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to run for the presidency.

    The petitioners seek to have the court declare that President Tinubu did not obtain the majority of lawful votes and to withdraw his Certificate of Return.

    They are also calling for a fresh presidential election, excluding Tinubu, whom they contend was ineligible to participate in the first place.

    Obi presented 13 witnesses and various documentary exhibits, while Atiku produced 27 witnesses and additional evidence before the court.

    INEC and President Tinubu each had one witness in their defense, and the APC did not produce any witnesses.

    The Respondents, including INEC, President Tinubu, and APC, have all submitted written addresses urging the court to dismiss the petitions for lack of merit.

    They argue that the petitioners failed to prove their allegations beyond reasonable doubt, as required by the law.

    Atiku’s joint petition with the PDP (marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023) asserts that Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the presidential election was invalid due to non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, and contends that he was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes.

    The proceedings continue as the nation awaits the judgment that will determine the outcome of the closely contested presidential election.

  • Tribunal: Ayade, APC tender 749 exhibits against PDP’s Jarigbe

    Former Governor of Cross River State Prof Ben Ayade and the All Progressives Congress have tendered 749 exhibits to upturn the election of Sen. Jarigbe Jarigbe of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the ongoing National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal (EPT) in Cross River.

    The sitting in Calabar, which continued to the late hours of Tuesday, was however adjourned to 10 a.m. on July 26 due to the poor lighting system in the courtroom.

    The petitioners, Ayade and APC, called four witnesses for cross-examination from Bekwarra Local Government Area, one of the LGAs in the northern senatorial district of the state where they alleged electoral irregularities.

    However, a mild drama ensued in the courtroom when the lead counsel of Sen. Jarigbe, Mba Ukweni, SAN objected to the right of two witnesses of the petitioners to identify evidence P39 brought before the court.

    Ukweni argued that for a witness to be able to identify or tender a document from the witness box, he or she must have mentioned or referred to it in an earlier deposition.

    “It is similar to the rule of pleading; if you don’t plead any fact, you cannot lead evidence on it.

    “So, if a witness does not refer to a document in his statement, he cannot also identify the document from the witness box or have it tendered, not just in election cases but also in civil matters,” he said.

    Vehemently opposing the counsel to the respondent, the Lead Counsel of the petitioners, Prof. Mike Ozekhome, said a witness could mention matters relating to the document in his deposition if he is a polling unit agent for his party.

    “Our witnesses have mentioned register, the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, (BVAS) and voters, the only thing they said they did not do was that they should have said voter register in their deposition.

    “Our witnesses said they are from their polling units and can identify the document, the document was already tendered as an exhibit, they were not trying to tender them but to identify them.

    “A witness from a polling unit can be made to look at the register of voters or any document from that polling unit which he has identified,” he said.

    Ruling on the matter, Justice M. A. Sambo upheld the objection of counsel to the respondent, Jarigbe and the PDP that a witness can only identify and speak on an issue contained in the deposition which he tendered.

    This decision did not go down well with the counsel to the petitioners as he disclosed that they would challenge it in the end in their final written address.

    Ayade is contesting the February 25 Cross River Northern Senatorial District election in which Sen. Jarigbe of the PDP was declared the winner. 

  • Tribunal: Atiku challenges Tinubu’s victory as unlawful, unconstitutional

    Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the February 25 presidential election, has strongly opposed the declaration of Bola Tinubu as Nigeria’s president, deeming it unlawful, null and void, and unconstitutional.

    In his final written address, the former vice president argued that Tinubu’s admission, along with confirmation by his witness, of forfeiting $460,000 to the American government due to narcotics trafficking and money laundering, disqualifies him from contesting for Nigeria’s Presidency, let alone being declared as the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Atiku’s lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, dismissed Tinubu’s claim and his witness’s defense regarding the forfeiture of the $460,000 money in a civil court action.

    Consequently, Atiku appealed to the tribunal to invoke Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution to nullify Tinubu’s declaration as President, citing his involvement in narcotics drugs crime, and to remove him from office as Nigeria’s President.

    Furthermore, Atiku contended that Tinubu’s attempt to define criminal forfeiture as a “civil action” was irrelevant and untenable.

    He pointed out that the United States of America Court acted on Tinubu’s indictment before imposing the forfeiture fine on him.

    The final address reads in part:

    “The forfeiture of $460,000 by the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) to the United States Government (a competent authority in the instant case) is neither contested nor disputed by any of the Respondents. The feeble response of the Respondents is that there was no arraignment or criminal conviction.

    “The verified complaint for forfeiture and the entire records of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division dated September 15, 1993, it was clearly indicated that the 2nd Respondent’s funds totaling $460,000, were seized as the funds which constitute proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering. 

    “The 2nd Respondent’s (Tinubu’s) sole witness Senator Bamidele Opeyemi, admitted under cross examination when shown the American court judgment that the proceedings affected the 2nd Respondent, as his name was reflected in the records of the court.

    “It is pertinent to observe that the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu)  evaded denying the forfeiture of the said sum of $460,000 U.S Dollars to the United States Government for narcotics trafficking and money laundering activities but engaged in semantic distinction between civil and criminal forfeiture, as well as the defence that the offence was committed over 10 years.

    “It is submitted, that forfeiture whether “civil” or “criminal” takes its source from commission of a crime.

    “The word “forfeiture” means – “the divestiture of property without compensation. The loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of duty.”

    “It is submitted with respect that in all the above definitions, the common thread that runs through all categories of Forfeiture is the imputation of a crime, leading to seizure of property or money.

    “It cannot be argued therefore that there was no imputation of crime, or a finding of violation of Penal laws relating to proceeds of drug trafficking or/and money laundering for which punishment was imposed. 

    “The 2nd Respondent’s forfeiture proceedings fall squarely within the prohibition and disqualification list contained in Section 137(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution as the proceedings constitute:

    “…a sentence of imprisonment or fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatever 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.”

    “No doubt, and it is so submitted that the “United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division qualified as a court (of record) and the forfeiture qualified as a punishment for criminal behavior or “Criminal activity” of 2nd Respondent.

    “It is the contention of the Petitioners that the words “any offence (by whatever named called)” and “substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on him” as used is clearly elastic enough and indeed disqualified the 2nd Respondent in his quest to contest the Presidential election.

  • Tribunal: No plot to undermine Judiciary, APC replies Atiku

    Tribunal: No plot to undermine Judiciary, APC replies Atiku

    The ruling All Progressives Congress APC has dismissed the allegation by the Poeples Democratic Party presidential flagbearer in the 2023 election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, that it is plotting to intimidate members of the judiciary towards unduly influencing the outcome of pending cases before the court.

    The APC National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Felix Morka, in a statement late Saturday night in Abuja, said Abubakar and his party offered no evidence to support their allegations that the February 25 presidential election was characterised by irregularities.

    “Our attention has been drawn to a press statement by a media aide to Atiku Abubakar, Presidential Candidate of the PDP.

    “The statement alleges that the APC and its government are engaged in a plot to intimidate members of the judiciary towards unduly influencing the outcome of pending cases before the court.

    “Atiku Abubakar and his minions offered no evidence to support their wild, hollow, and mischievous allegations.

    “Quite frankly, there is nothing in Abubakar’s statement, that is worth a reaction from the APC,” Morka said.

    He added that the statement lacked substance and cogency, saying its only imaginable purpose is a childish attempt to float an alibi to deflect the shame of a highly probable defeat in court.

    This, he added, was after the former vice-president had failed to make out a credible case to justify his bogus claim that he won the last presidential election.

    “President Bola Tinubu and our party won the election convincingly. We have full faith and confidence in our courts to dispense electoral justice in accordance with our Constitution and all applicable laws,” Morka stressed.