Summary:
- The article talks about the possible effects of a 2014 ruling by Olukayode Ariwoola, the current Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), about what “forfeiture” means in the case of Mohammed Abacha v. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
- The ruling was made in the case of Mohammed Abacha v. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
- In the ruling, Ariwoola declared that forfeiture means “the loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime.”
- The article suggests that this ruling could have implications for Tinubu, who was fined $460,000 for narcotics trafficking by a US court.
- The article also provides background on the Abacha case and the specific charges against Mohammed Abacha, the son of former Nigerian head of state Sani Abacha.
Peter Obi, the presidential candidate for the Labour Party, has filed a petition to challenge the victory of Bola Tinubu, the candidate for the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) said that Tinubu was the winner of the election on February 25.
Obi wants Tinubu to be kicked out of the race because he is said to have been convicted of selling drugs in the US in 1993. Obi’s petition states that Tinubu was fined $460,000 for narcotics trafficking by a US court.
Tinubu’s supporters and opponents have had different things to say about the case. Some say that the forfeiture does not prove guilt, while others say it shows that Tinubu was involved in a crime.
Mandynews.com has now obtained an earlier ruling in which Olukayode Ariwoola, the current Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), while serving as a Supreme Court justice, declared that forfeiture means “the loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime.”
The ruling was delivered on January 17, 2014, in the case of Mohammed Abacha v. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Two of the justices who passed the verdict at the Supreme Court also went on to become the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) at different times, including Walter Onnoghen, a former CJN.
In this case, Mohammed Abacha, the second child of Sani Abacha, a former head of state, was challenging an appeal court judgment delivered on April 18, 2005.
The Federal Government had charged Abacha with offenses including conspiracy, receiving stolen property, dishonesty, and concealing stolen money, all pursuant to Sections 97(i), 317, and 319 of the Penal Code.
After the High Court and the Appeal Court found Abacha guilty, the case reached the Supreme Court, where Ariwoola and the other justices delivered the final verdict.
According to the Nigerian Constitution, a presidential candidate can be disqualified if they are convicted and sentenced for a crime that involves lying within 10 years of the election. Tinubu’s forfeiture occurred 30 years ago, well beyond the 10-year period outlined in the constitution.
Legal experts, on the other hand, say that Tinubu’s case is different enough that the court would have to decide if the US ruling applies in Nigeria.
The outcome of Obi’s petition and its impact on Tinubu’s presidency remain to be seen, as the court has yet to rule on the matter.
Mohammed Abacha V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria Case
The Mohammed Abacha V. Federal Republic of Nigeria case is a crucial legal precedent that sheds light on the concept of forfeiture in Nigerian law.
The ruling, delivered by current Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Olukayode Ariwoola, clarifies the meaning and implications of forfeiture as it relates to criminal offenses.
The case details and the full ruling can be found in the PDF file, which provides an in-depth analysis of the arguments presented by both parties and the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision.
This case is particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing debate surrounding Bola Tinubu’s eligibility for the presidency, as it may inform the court’s interpretation of his alleged forfeiture in the United States.
