One of the lead advocacy groups in Africa, African One-Voice Initiative has recently condemned what it describes as a calculated campaign by sections of the political opposition to misrepresent a 1993 United States civil forfeiture proceeding as a criminal conviction of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
In a public statement signed by the President of the body, Hon Abd-Hammed Salawu Dullar, the group describe such campaign as legally misleading and also politically irresponsible.
Africa One-Voice Initiative in reference to certain foreign instances condemned double standard in politics and finally warned that opposition in politics should not lead to attack on Nigeria.
“We consider this campaign not only legally misleading but politically irresponsible, particularly when it is being deployed to ridicule the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria before the international community.
Political opposition is legitimate. Criticism of government is legitimate. Demanding accountability is legitimate. But manufacturing a criminal conviction where none has been established by a criminal judgment is neither legitimate opposition nor responsible democratic engagement.
“The matter repeatedly cited against President Tinubu concerns a civil forfeiture proceeding, an in rem action directed at property.
That is fundamentally different from a criminal prosecution against an individual.
The distinction is not a political invention. The United States Supreme Court has expressly recognised the separate character of civil in rem forfeiture proceedings. In United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), the Court held that the civil forfeitures before it were not criminal punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
This does not mean that forfeiture proceedings are irrelevant or that their underlying circumstances cannot be discussed. They can and should be examined where appropriate.
But forfeiture cannot simply be renamed “criminal conviction” because doing so is politically convenient.
A criminal conviction is a specific judicial event. It follows a criminal charge, prosecution and adjudication resulting in a judgment of guilt.
Therefore, those who repeatedly describe President Tinubu as a person “convicted” in the United States must answer a very simple question:
Where is the criminal indictment? Where is the criminal trial? Where is the judgment of criminal conviction?
If the answer is a civil forfeiture record, then the terminology is being deliberately distorted.
“The hypocrisy becomes even more obvious when the argument is compared with the case of former United States Congressman William Jefferson.
Jefferson was criminally investigated, prosecuted and convicted.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar was associated with aspects of the investigation, including matters concerning a proposed Nigerian telecommunications transaction. Yet Atiku was not the person convicted in Jefferson’s criminal case.
Those who defend Atiku quite rightly insist that being mentioned in an investigation does not make a person a convicted criminal.
We agree.
But if that principle protects Atiku, it must equally protect Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The law cannot be one thing when Atiku is involved and another thing when Tinubu is involved.
If Jefferson’s conviction cannot legally be transferred to Atiku by association, then a civil forfeiture proceeding cannot be transformed into Tinubu’s criminal conviction merely through political rhetoric.
“The Africa One Voice Initiative is deeply concerned about the growing tendency to internationalise domestic political disagreements by presenting disputed or distorted narratives about Nigeria’s President as established criminal facts.
This is bigger than President Tinubu.
It is about Nigeria.
The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria may be criticised. His policies may be challenged. His administration may be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
But deliberate misrepresentation of judicial records in an attempt to portray Nigeria’s elected President as a convicted criminal is an assault on the dignity of the Nigerian state.
Political actors should not invite foreign audiences to ridicule Nigeria by presenting partisan allegations as judicial facts.
“If anyone possesses evidence that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was criminally charged, tried and convicted in the United States, let that evidence be produced publicly.
Produce:
the criminal charge;
the indictment or criminal complaint;
the criminal case number;
the court and date of trial;
and the judgment of criminal conviction.
Let the evidence speak.
But repeatedly presenting civil forfeiture documents and calling them a criminal conviction does not make them one.
An African advocacy group, Africa One Voice Initiative has recently condemned what it describes as a calculated campaign by sections of the political opposition to misrepresent a 1993 United States civil forfeiture proceeding as a criminal conviction of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
In a public statement signed by the President of the body, Hon Abd-Hammed Salawu Dullar, the group describe such campaign as legally misleading and also politically irresponsible.
Africa One-Voice Initiative in reference to certain foreign instances condemned double standard in politics and finally warned that opposition in politics should not lead to attack on Nigeria.
“We consider this campaign not only legally misleading but politically irresponsible, particularly when it is being deployed to ridicule the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria before the international community.
Political opposition is legitimate. Criticism of government is legitimate. Demanding accountability is legitimate. But manufacturing a criminal conviction where none has been established by a criminal judgment is neither legitimate opposition nor responsible democratic engagement.
“The matter repeatedly cited against President Tinubu concerns a civil forfeiture proceeding, an in rem action directed at property.
That is fundamentally different from a criminal prosecution against an individual.
The distinction is not a political invention. The United States Supreme Court has expressly recognised the separate character of civil in rem forfeiture proceedings. In United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), the Court held that the civil forfeitures before it were not criminal punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
This does not mean that forfeiture proceedings are irrelevant or that their underlying circumstances cannot be discussed. They can and should be examined where appropriate.
But forfeiture cannot simply be renamed “criminal conviction” because doing so is politically convenient.
A criminal conviction is a specific judicial event. It follows a criminal charge, prosecution and adjudication resulting in a judgment of guilt.
Therefore, those who repeatedly describe President Tinubu as a person “convicted” in the United States must answer a very simple question:
Where is the criminal indictment? Where is the criminal trial? Where is the judgment of criminal conviction?
If the answer is a civil forfeiture record, then the terminology is being deliberately distorted.
“The hypocrisy becomes even more obvious when the argument is compared with the case of former United States Congressman William Jefferson.
Jefferson was criminally investigated, prosecuted and convicted.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar was associated with aspects of the investigation, including matters concerning a proposed Nigerian telecommunications transaction. Yet Atiku was not the person convicted in Jefferson’s criminal case.
Those who defend Atiku quite rightly insist that being mentioned in an investigation does not make a person a convicted criminal.
We agree.
But if that principle protects Atiku, it must equally protect Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The law cannot be one thing when Atiku is involved and another thing when Tinubu is involved.
If Jefferson’s conviction cannot legally be transferred to Atiku by association, then a civil forfeiture proceeding cannot be transformed into Tinubu’s criminal conviction merely through political rhetoric.
“The Africa One Voice Initiative is deeply concerned about the growing tendency to internationalise domestic political disagreements by presenting disputed or distorted narratives about Nigeria’s President as established criminal facts.
This is bigger than President Tinubu.
It is about Nigeria.
The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria may be criticised. His policies may be challenged. His administration may be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
But deliberate misrepresentation of judicial records in an attempt to portray Nigeria’s elected President as a convicted criminal is an assault on the dignity of the Nigerian state.
Political actors should not invite foreign audiences to ridicule Nigeria by presenting partisan allegations as judicial facts.
“If anyone possesses evidence that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was criminally charged, tried and convicted in the United States, let that evidence be produced publicly.
Produce:
the criminal charge;
the indictment or criminal complaint;
the criminal case number;
the court and date of trial;
and the judgment of criminal conviction.
Let the evidence speak.
But repeatedly presenting civil forfeiture documents and calling them a criminal conviction does not make them one.
Africa One Voice Initiative rejects the selective application of legal principles for political purposes.
We will defend the principle that Atiku Abubakar should not be described as a convicted criminal merely because another person was convicted in a case in which his name arose.
By the same standard, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should not be described as a convicted criminal on the basis of a civil forfeiture proceeding.
The presumption of innocence and the integrity of judicial terminology cannot depend on political affiliation.
The same law that protects one’s political opponent today may protect one’s political ally tomorrow.
OUR MESSAGE TO NIGERIANS
Nigeria is bigger than Tinubu.
Nigeria is bigger than Atiku.
Nigeria is bigger than the APC, PDP or any other political party.
We therefore urge Nigerians to reject the politics of character assassination, selective legal interpretation and international embarrassment.
The opposition has every democratic right to seek power. It has every right to criticise the President. It has every right to campaign against his policies and seek to replace him through constitutional democratic processes.
But power must be pursued through truth, ideas and persuasion—not manufactured convictions.
Africa One Voice Initiative will continue to defend the sovereignty, dignity and democratic integrity of Nigeria.
We will not permit legitimate political disagreement to degenerate into the deliberate falsification of judicial facts.
“An allegation is not a conviction.
An investigation is not a prosecution.
Association is not guilt.
Civil forfeiture is not, by itself, a criminal conviction.
And political propaganda cannot rewrite a judicial record.
Those who seek to lead Nigeria must demonstrate that they are prepared to respect the law even when the law does not serve their immediate political interest.
Nigeria deserves better”.
“An allegation is not a conviction.
An investigation is not a prosecution.
Association is not guilt.
Civil forfeiture is not, by itself, a criminal conviction.
And political propaganda cannot rewrite a judicial record.
Those who seek to lead Nigeria must demonstrate that they are prepared to respect the law even when the law does not serve their immediate political interest.
Nigeria deserves better”.