The All Progressives Congress (APC) has explained the circumstances that led its candidate and president-elect, Bola Tinubu, to forfeit the sum of $460,000 to the government of the United States of America in 1993, following a drug trafficking allegation

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has explained the circumstances that led its candidate and president-elect, Bola Tinubu, to forfeit the sum of $460,000 to the government of the United States of America in 1993, following a drug trafficking allegation.

The Presidential Candidate of the Labour party, Peter Obi had challenged the announcement of Tinubu as the winner of the election, stating among other things that the APC candidate was not qualified to contest the election.

Obi in his lawsuit filed at the electoral tribunal said Tinubu’s forfeiture of his funds to the US government over a drug trafficking allegation was an indication that he engaged in infractions that were enough to disqualify him from contesting an election.

In new court filings at the Presidential Election Petition Court, the APC said that Tinubu merely relinquished the funds in 10 bank accounts that were opened in either his name or that of Compass Finance and Investment Co.

The APC said the funds in the said accounts, which were domiciled in two commercial banks, were subject to a civil forfeiture proceeding in Case No: 93C4483 and that the purported decision of the United State District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern division in the said case, was not a fine but a decree of forfeiture of the amount of $460,000 to the United State pursuant to the settlement of claim by the parties to the case.

The APC, through lawyers led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that the Federal Government had as far back as 2003, through the American Consulate in Nigeria, inquired about Tinubu’s criminal record which unequivocally and unreservedly cleared Tinubu of any criminal record, in the United States of America.

The APC argued that the said forfeiture Tinubu made to the US government, having lasted a period of 29 years, was no longer a valid ground to challenge his eligibility to contest the presidential election.

“The Respondent states that, in any event, the impleaded decision of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division is not a decision by a competent court of law or tribunal in Nigeria…