INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu
‘We were unaware of Tinubu’s U.S forfeiture case’ – INEC tells PEPT
First respondent in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP) along with their presidential candidates; Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, respectively, challenging the declaration) of Bola Tinubu as winner of the February 25, 2023 election, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has submitted its written address to the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) in Abuja.
The development follows barely a week after the other three respondents; now President Bola Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima and the All Progressives Congress (APO) as second, third and fourth respondents, respectively, has filed their 40-page response to the petition from PDP and LP candidates.
Atiku and Obi are challenging INEX’s declaration of Tinubu on March 1, as winner of the election conducted by INEC on Saturday, February 25 on various levels ranging from electoral and constitutional grounds.
In a response filed at the court through its Lead Counsel, Mr Abubakar M. Mahnmood, INEC claims it was unaware of subsisting charge of US$ $460,000 forfeiture against the APC candidate, Tinubu before it cleared the latter to contest the February 25 election.
This is also as the electoral umpire in its final written address told the court that going by the testimonies of witnesses called up to testify before the court, ‘the US case was a civil forfeiture proceedings and there was no charge or conviction.’
One of the grounds for disqualification sought by the LP in its petition was that Tinubu as at the time of the election was not qualified to contest for election to the office of President as he was fined the sum of $460,000.00 (Four-Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) for an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking, imposed by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483 titled “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff FUNDS IN ACCOUNT 263226700 HELD BY FIRST HERITAGE BANK, IN THE NAME OF BOLA TINUBU.”
“On the alleged imposition of fine on the 2nd Respondent(TInubu) by the United States District Court in Case No: 93C 4483, the case of the 1st Respondent(INEC) is simply that same was not brought to its attention,” he stated.
However, he told the PEPC that the 1999 Constitution provides that the fine that disqualifies one from running for president must be associated with a court sentence.
“However, Section 137 (1) (d) of the Constitution, which provides for the sentence of fine as a disqualifying factor in respect of a Presidential Candidate, states as follows;
“(1) A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President
if- (d.) 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 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;” he added.
Mahmoud argued that in the 1999 constitution, the prescription of “fine” as a disqualifying factor for a Presidential candidate is hinged on a “sentence.”
“Thus, the Petitioners failed to prove this allegation and we urge the court to so hold.
“We urge the court to resolve this issue in favour of the 1st Respondent and hold that the 2nd (Tinubu) and 3rd Respondents (Kashim Shettima) were qualified,” he stated.
“On the issue of the order of forfeiture by the United States District Court, they (Tinubu, APC) contend that there was no criminal charge, sentence or conviction to support the allegation of criminal conviction or forfeiture. They further contended that the alleged order of forfeiture being that of a foreign court is not registered in Nigeria to be enforceable and is in fact now over 20 years since the alleged order was made,” INEC’s response read in parts.
