Counsel to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Aloy Ejimakor, has defended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over the long-standing controversy surrounding the forfeiture of funds linked to him in the United States, insisting that the case was a civil matter and not evidence of criminal conviction.
In an opinion article, Ejimakor argued that although the 1993 forfeiture of 460,000 dollars from bank accounts associated with Tinubu may raise moral and political questions, it does not amount to a criminal offence under United States law.
Drawing from his legal training and years of legal practice in the United States, the lawyer said many individuals have forfeited assets through civil proceedings without ever being convicted of any crime.
According to him, American law clearly distinguishes between civil asset forfeiture and criminal forfeiture, stressing that the two legal processes should not be confused.
“Under U.S. law, the distinction between a criminal conviction and a civil asset forfeiture is foundational and statutorily distinguished from each other,” Ejimakor stated.
He explained that certified court records relating to Tinubu’s case show that the forfeiture was conducted strictly as a civil in rem proceeding, targeting property rather than an individual.
“The certified record of the pertinent proceedings in the Tinubu case show that the 1993 forfeiture of $460,000 from bank accounts linked to President Tinubu was strictly a civil in rem proceeding, not a criminal in personam conviction.
“Strictly governed by 18 U.S.C. § 981, civil forfeiture targets property based on its connection to alleged unlawful conduct, rather than establishing personal criminal liability. It is under this law that the US government (in United States v. Funds in Account No. 263226700 et al., No. 93 C 4483 (N.D. Ill.) filed a CIVIL complaint directly against the Tinubu funds or bank accounts, thus resulting in a compromised settlement without a judicial finding of guilt.
“Contrast with the very next provision, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 982 which specifically deals with CRIMINAL forfeiture and thus requires a finding of guilt and a personal conviction. Truth be told, this is not what happened in the Tinubu matter.”
Ejimakor further recalled that the legal position on civil forfeiture was clarified by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ursery (1996), which affirmed that civil forfeitures are remedial actions against property and not criminal punishment.
“But even in the US, the matter was controversial until 1996 when, in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that civil in rem forfeitures are civil, non-criminal remedial actions against property, distinct from criminal punishment which is considered in personam. It was under this principle that the Tinubu funds were considered property, connected to alleged unlawful conduct, but sans criminal liability,” he said.
While acknowledging that critics are entitled to question the ethical implications of the allegations surrounding the forfeited funds, Ejimakor maintained that the legal facts remain unchanged.
“While critics are free to leverage the underlying allegations of narcotics proceeds to argue moral turpitude or fitness for public office, the legal reality remains distinct, and that is: Tinubu was never charged, tried, or convicted of a crime. Therefore, conflating his civil asset forfeiture with a criminal guilt misinterprets statutory mechanics and the binding judicial precedents on point.”
The IPOB lawyer insisted that his analysis was based purely on legal principles rather than political loyalty, noting that he has personally faced prosecution under the Tinubu administration.
“And this is just an unbiased restatement of the black letter law, not any support for President Tinubu. After all, his men harshly detained me for several days in October last year for allegedly participating in the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest, for which I am still on trial that comes up on 31st July,” Ejimakor added.
