Why Tinubu’s Drug Case In US Cannot Truncate His Chances Of Being Sworn In – Onanuga

The alleged drug trafficking case of the Nigeria president-elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu in the United States (US) has been confirmed to be happen 10 years ago but cannot be used to truncate his chances of be sworn in as Nigerians president.

VerseNews Nigeria reports that this was revealed on Sunday by Bayo Onanuga, chief spokeman of Tinubu in a chat with Ayo Obe another royalty of the former Lagos Governor.

According to Onanuga in the chat, “The Obidiots don’t read. They live in a cocoon of falsehood and contrived propaganda.”

He then made it clear that Tinubu cannot be sacked by the Supreme Court because his established drug trafficking case in Chicago was already statute-barred. 

In response to the chat, Mrs Obe quoted Section 137 (1)e) of the Constitution that said a Nigerian cannot be elected president within 10 years of a conviction for offences brought by the Code of Conduct Bureau. 

“A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if within a period of less than ten years before the date of the election to the officee of President he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or he has been found guilty of the contravention of the Code of Conduct,” the section said.

On the preceding section of the Constitution, Section 137 (1)(d), “that disqualified anyone who had been fined for any offences in the past from becoming president”, Mrs Obe said that section, which applies to Mr Tinubu’s forfeiture of over $460,000 due to drug crimes in Chicago in 1993, “did not give any timeline under which a convict can be released to run for Nigeria’s presidency.”

DON’T MISS: DSS Writes Peter Obi, Others Over Hate Speech

It only said: “A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if 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.”

This Online News Media reports that the Supreme Court in 2014 defined forfeiture as punishment for an offence under Nigerian criminal statutes.

“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,” the court ruled on January 17, 2014, in Mohammed Abacha and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“A person who has forfeited property on the basis of a crime cannot be entitled to indemnity. Forfeiture is a form of punishment. There is no indemnity in our criminal procedure,” the court further stated in a majority decision delivered by now-Chief Justice Olukayode Ariwoola. 

Based on the petition by the Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate, peter Obi, the drug case of Tinubu is one the strong points to be used against him (Tinubu) in the Supreme Court.

See chat below: