Afimag.com –
The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), has said that it can not arrest the winner of the February 25, 2023, presidential election, Asiwaju Ahmed Tinubu on the ground of the facilities he forfeited about twenty years ago over allegations on drug deals.
The agency disclosed this while responding to a suit instituted by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and a Kogi State Governorship flag-bearer, Senator Dino Melaye.
The duo had approached the court seeking an order of mandamus to compel NDLEA to arrest and prosecute Tinubu over alleged forfeiture of some funds in his bank accounts about two decades ago in the United States.
The Agency who filed a preliminary objection at the Federal High Court in Abuja on April 26, 2023, through her Director of Prosecution and Legal Services, Joseph Nbona Sunday, described the application by the PDP and Melaye as incompetent, saying that it is targeted at ripping off the president-elect his victory at polls.
While urging the Court to strike out the suit, NDLEA said both PDP and Dino Melaye lack the locus standi of compelling it to apprehend Tinubu, adding the applicants do not possess an interest peculiar to them and above the interests of all other Nigerians.
The drug regulatory body noted that the order of mandamus is an equitable remedy and must only be applied for in good faith instead of producing an indirect result.
- PGF: Tinubu Prepares Big Packages For Party Candidates Who Lost In Their States At Polls
- PIA: Iwevbo Community In Synergy With NEWCROSS Petroleum On Peace, Development
- Why Katsina Governor-Elect Won’t Use ‘His Excellency’ Title
- 8 Health Workers Face Trial Over Maradona’s Death
The litigation officer attached to Directorate of Prosecution and Legal Services, Chia Cosmas Depunn, in an affidavit said the NDLEA has a healthy relationship with the government of the United States and that Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s name was not penned down for such offenses.
The affidavit reads, “That this suit as presently constituted does not confer the Court with jurisdiction.
“That the 1st Applicant does not have locus standi to institute this suit as it does not possess interest peculiar to it and above the interests of all other Nigerians. That the only peculiar interest of the 1st Applicant is to get rid of the 6th Respondent as a candidate of a rival political party.
“That the interest of the 1st Applicant is political in nature. That the 3rd Respondent is an independent Government Agency that has no political colouration or affiliation.
“That the Court has a duty to insulate the 3rd Respondent from political controversies. That the suit is baseless, frivolous and brought in bad faith with the sole aim of achieving a political objective using the instrumentality of the Court process.
“That the facts and circumstances of the case require the Court to apply the doctrine of judicial self-restraint. That the 2nd Applicant is not an officer or executive or management committee of the 1st Applicant.
“That the 2nd Applicant has no locus standi to institute this suit as he does not possess any interest peculiar to him and above the interests of all other Nigerians. That an Order of Mandamus is an equitable remedy.
“That the Order of Mandamus must be applied in good faith to promote the public interest. That the Order of Mandamus should not produce an indirect or underlying result.
“That he has gone through the supporting judicial proceedings and noted as follows:
“That the matter was a civil forfeiture proceeding in rem brought by the United States of America as plaintiff against certain accounts held in the name of the 6th Respondent.
“That the object of the suit was to forfeit the funds or a certain part thereof in the said accounts as proceeds of illicit traffic in drugs. That the suit was not taken out against the person of the 6th Respondent.
“That the suit was not a criminal indictment or charge.
“That the standard of proof in civil forfeiture is based on the balance of probabilities. That the standard of proof in a criminal indictment, charges and proceedings is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That the burden of proof in criminal procedure is much higher than that of civil procedure.
“That the Orders of the United States District Court of Illinois delivered by Magistrate Judge John A Nordberg in Suit No. 9C4483 relating to the release of the funds held in Citi Bank N.A. and Citi Bank International which funds were the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the suit were made “with prejudice”.
“That the Orders of the District Court in the Citibank Accounts places a barrier on any further proceedings relating to the Account. That only the Orders relating to the funds held in Heritage Bank where the sum of $460, 000.00 was forfeited was made simpliciter and without a caveat.
“That the Orders made by the US District Court of Illinois were made to incorporate “the stipulation and Compromise Settlement of Claims to the Funds Held by Heritage Bank and Citibank” earlier filed by the parties in Court. That the judgment of the US District Court of Illinois put to an end to issues relating to the forfeiture and release of funds as contained in the Settlement Agreement.
“That the cause of action for mandamus requesting the 3rd Respondent to investigate and prosecute the 6th Respondent is founded on the judgment of the District Court of Illinois which has put the matter to rest. That the cause of action of the Applicants is dead and legally unsustainable. That it is in the interest of justice to dismiss this suit with substantial cost.”
