Tinubu’s US Fund Forfeiture Raises Moral, Not Criminal Questions — Kanu’s Lawyer Ejimakor

Lead counsel to the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, Aloy Ejimakor, has argued that President Bola Tinubu’s 1993 forfeiture of funds in the United States raises moral and political questions but does not amount to a criminal conviction under US law.

In an opinion piece, Ejimakor said his years of legal training and practice in the United States exposed him to several instances in which individuals forfeited assets through civil proceedings without being convicted of any criminal offence.

According to him, US law draws a clear distinction between criminal convictions and civil asset forfeiture, with each governed by separate legal principles and statutory provisions.

He said certified court records relating to Tinubu’s case showed that the 1993 forfeiture of $460,000 from bank accounts linked to the President was handled strictly as a civil in rem proceeding rather than a criminal in personam prosecution.

“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,” he stated.

Ejimakor contrasted the provision with 18 U.S.C. § 982, which governs criminal forfeiture and, according to him, requires a finding of guilt and a personal criminal conviction.

“Truth be told, this is not what happened in the Tinubu matter,” he said.

He added that the legal position became clearer after the 1996 US Supreme Court decision in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), which affirmed that civil in rem forfeitures are remedial actions against property rather than criminal punishment directed at individuals.

“But even in the US, the matter was controversial until 1996 when, in United States v. Ursery, 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 could rely on the allegations surrounding the forfeited funds to question Tinubu’s moral standing or suitability for public office, Ejimakor insisted that such arguments should not be confused with criminal culpability.

“Critics are free to leverage the underlying allegations of narcotics proceeds to argue moral turpitude or fitness for public office, but 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,” he said.

Ejimakor stressed that his position should not be interpreted as political support for the President, noting that he remains critical of the 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 July 31,” he added.