Tinubu Opening His Drug Account cont:
Assuming without conceding or concluding that my position above is wrong and it is settled that the action for forfeiture was against the Bank Account, it should then be noted that a Bank Account alone in legal parlance is not a juristic person that can sue or be sued and it is trite law that you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. See Benjamin Leobard Macfoy vs United Africa Company Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169.
In essence, one cannot successfully severe the tie between an account and the holder of the account. From the onset, the name of Bola Ahmed Tinubu appeared on the originating processes. It will be grossly misleading for Mr. Keyamo to say that Tinubu was never a party to the forfeiture suit. Besides, after the court had made the order nisi for Tinubu to come and show cause why the money/fund in his account should not be forfeited to the United State, Tinubu briefed his Lawyer, Mogaji who filed appearance in the case and again, Tinubu was referred to as a Claimant in the suit.
Another key area that captivated me in the interview of Mr. Keyamo was the area he said that forfeiture is neither a fine nor a punishment. I am indeed pleased that he admitted that $460,000 USD was forfeited by Tinubu to the Government of the United States. My question is; if the $460,000 forfeited by Tinubu to the US Government is not a fine or punishment, is it a donation or a reward?
Forfeiture generally is the loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of duty. (See Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition). Simply, forfeiture is an involuntary or unwilling relinquishment of money or property as a punishment for crime or deprivation of right over property due to commission of crime or breach of duty. It should be borne in mind that article xvii of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights entitled Bola Tinubu to own property anywhere in the world and such shall not be arbitrarily deprived from him but in the instant case, the $460,000 that he forfeited or was deprived of was a punishment for violating a particular code/law in the United States of America and till date, Tinubu has not challenged the forfeiture ruling/judgment anywhere in the world.
For more insight, clarification and better understanding of the subject matter, I think it is necessary to reproduce the US code/Law which Tinubu violated. According to Kevin Moss in paragraph 48 of the verified Affidavit, he said;“…For the reasons set forth above, there is a probable cause to believe that the funds in the accounts held by First Heritage Bank, Citibank, NA and Citibank International in the name of Bola Tinubu and Compass Finance and Investment Company Ltd represent property involved in transactions in violation of 18 USC 1956 AND 1957 or is property traceable to such property or represents the proceeds of drug trafficking making the funds in the accounts forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 18 USC 981 AND 21 USC 881”.
The provision of 18 US Code 1956 (laundering of money instrument) says;
A (1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conduct or attempts to conduct such financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity…shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000…”
The provision of 18 US Code 1957(Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity). This law provides;Whoever, in any of the circumstances set forth in subsection (d), knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specific unlawful activity shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). Except as provided in paragraph (2), the punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under title 18 USC or imprisonment for not more than ten years or both.
The above provision sheds more light or explains better why out of over $900,000 that was in the account of Bola Tinubu as at the material time, only $460,000 was forfeited. The punishment section says that the fine will not be above $500,000.Before I conclude this page, it is germane I draw a line between when an order nisi is made for forfeiture, the owner of the property did not appear and when he appears by himself or through a lawyer. In my mind, when the owner of the property (money) subject of forfeiture proceeding does not appear, it can be called forfeiture simpliciter (Albeit, punishment) but when he appears, admits or consents to the forfeiture, it becomes a fine. This is so because, at the point Tinubu put up appearance in the matter and admitted he has committed a crime and to let go $460,000, he is simply authorising his bank to pay to the United States of America the sum of $460,000 from his account.
Furthermore, assuming my position above once again is not correct, will it be correct to say that Tinubu has committed a crime in the United States of American and can be tried in Nigeria?
CAN TINUBU STILL BE TRIED IN NIGERIA FOR THE CRIME HE COMMITTED IN THE UNITED STATES OVER 30YEARS AGO?
There are basically two legal issues posed by that question but the answers are in the affirmative. First, there is a principle of law that says “time does not run against the State”. That is, in criminal matters with few exceptions like custom offences, dud cheques, treason and treasonable felonies etc, the statute of limitation does not affect criminal prosecution.
Nothing will satisfactorily diminish the fact that Tinubu committed a crime of Drug Trafficking, money laundry, false information et al. The fact of forfeiting the sum of $460,000 to the United States of America which still subsists is a conclusive prove of commission of the alleged crimes and can still be tried and convicted in Nigeria under section 12(1)(2) or 13 and 14 of the Criminal Code Act Laws of the FRN which came into force on the 1st day of June, 1916. He can also be tried under sections 11, 14, 21 and 22 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Laws of the FRN that came in force that same day Tinubu opened the drug account (29th day of December, 1989).There is a particular section of the NDLEA Act that caught my attention even though it may not be applicable. Section 22(2) provides;
“Any Nigerian Citizen found guilty in any foreign country of an offence involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances and who thereby brings the name of Nigeria into disrepute shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection”.
OTHER LAWS BOLA TINUBU VIOLATED OR BREACHED.
It should be recalled that between 1992 and 1993, Bola Tinubu was a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as such a public officer within the contemplation and spirit of the 1979 and 1989 Constitution of Nigeria which is in pari materia with the 1999 constitution. The 5th schedule to the constitution provides that a public officer;
- Shall not maintain or operate a foreign account.
- Shall not belong to any society/organisation which membership is incompatible with the function or dignity of his office
- Shall declare all his properties, assets, and liabilities and those of his unmarried children under the age of 18years.
Suffice it to say that Bola Ahmed Tinubu maintained many foreign accounts while still the Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He belonged to Heroin Distribution Organisation in the Chicago Illinois area which is incompatible with his position as a senator. Finally, he never declared all those monies found in his foreign accounts.
CONCLUSION:
I have taken out time to pen this down not necessarily to attack the personality of Bola Ahmed Tinubu but to help him and Nigerians take proper decision. Tinubu as a patriotic Nigerian who believes in Nigeria and meant well for the country, should as a matter of urgency, necessity and national interest disqualify himself from the presidential race. The evidences against him are too glaring to be ignored and the whole world is watching and waiting. Our ruling party the APC had made a grievous mistake by jettisoning personalities like Prof. Yemi Osibanjo and co and opting for Tinubu; grievously they should answer it. Another way to riggle out of this ugly situation is for the APC to prevail on the president to exercise his prerogative of mercy in favour of Bola Tinubu as enshrined under section 175 of the Constitution. With that, Nigerians and the international community will know that he has been absorbed of his sins and declared clean to run for the highest office in the land.
Peradventure this is not done; Bola Ahmed Tinubu cannot become the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and have the moral and legal justification to prosecute directly or indirectly any offender or criminal because he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. As bad as Nigeria is, It has never happened in her history that a person with criminal record successfully contested and became the president of Nigeria. Even under military regime, they were so mindful of this when President Obasanjo was granted pardon so he can successfully run for the highest office in the country and it worked out.
May I at this juncture use this medium to respectfully urge and pray President Mohammed Buhari to bequeath to Nigerians a free and fair election and also to set free all the freedom fighters. This will bring peace and progress in Nigeria to the betterment of all Nigerians.
Thank you and God bless us!!!!!
Kelechi Agbasiere (KSJI)
