Abuja (Sundiata Post) – It is common knowledge that in the petition Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi filed in court challenging the victory of APC’s Bola Tinubu, he said going by section 137 (1D) of the Nigerian constitution Tinubu should not have been allowed to contest in the presidential election.
He said this is because of the issue of Tinubu’s forfeiture of 460,000 dollars to the US government in 1993, however, some of Tinubu’s supporters have argued that forfeiture doesn’t prove guilt or involvement in a crime.
However, Abdul Mahmud a legal practitioner has made it known that the issue of whether or not forfeiture can be considered a fine has been before the Supreme Court in the past. He said the apex court in its ruling upheld that forfeiture is within the whole context of fine.
About 2:50 minutes into a video shared on YouTube by Aisha Yesufu, Mahmud said “The first limb of Obi’s petition is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of law and the position of Obi is founded on the whole question of forfeiture that took place in America 29 years ago.
“The argument here is does forfeiture fall within the ambit of section 137 (1d). The constitution doesn’t in specificity referred to forfeiture, it talks about fines but can fine mean forfeiture? We have seen the Supreme Court decision in which the current CJN of Nigeria Justice Ariwoola read the lead judgment where he basically quartered forfeiture around the whole context of fine. When you forgo something it comes within the whole business of fine so that is the entire argument of Obi.
