Bola Tinubu‘s declaration as president of Nigeria is illegal and unconstitutional, according to Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in the election for president on February 25.
He emphasised that Tinubu’s removal from power is necessary to clean up the nation’s political system.
This was said by Atiku in his closing remarks to bolster his appeal to have Tinubu’s victory declared invalid.
Read Also: CBN Unfreezes NairaBet, AbokiFX, 440 Other Companies, Persons’ Accounts
He insisted that Tinubu has no right to run for president of Nigeria after directly acknowledging and having it corroborated by his witness that he forfeited $460,000 to the American government over charges of drug trafficking and money laundering.
Atiku dismissed the claim of Tinubu and his witness that he forfeited the $460,000 money in a civil court action.
The former Vice President argued that the definition and colour of “civil action” being given to the criminal forfeiture by Tinubu were of no moment and untenable because a United States of America Court acted on the indictment of Tinubu before imposing the forfeiture fine on him.
The final address endorsed by Atiku’s lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, read 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, was indicated that the 2nd Respondent’s funds totaling $460,000, were seized as the funds which constitute proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
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 the semantic distinction between civil and criminal forfeiture, as well as the defence that the offence was committed over 10 years.”
