According to the court’s lead decision in the joint case filed by the Labour Party and its candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, the $460,000 punishment levied on Tinubu in the US constituted a civil matter, as evidenced by the petition’s submission.
It was decided that Tibubu could not be disqualified from running in the February 25 presidential election since such a punishment did not equate to a criminal conviction.
The case that resulted in the fine being imposed against President Tinubu, according to Justice Haruna Tsammani, who presided over the five-member panel, “was in the civil docket” of the court in the US, according to a meticulous examination of the materials that were brought before the court.
He concluded that, in contrast to the Petitioners’ assertion, the case included a civil forfeiture procedure against bank funds and not an action against Tinubu personally.
Furthermore, the court ruled that Obi and the LP had not demonstrated that Tinubu had been charged with, arraigned for, tried for, or found guilty of any crime in the USA.
The court also observed that the American Embassy certified there was no criminal record against Tinubu in its consolidated information center in response to a letter the Inspector General of Police wrote in 2003.
It was decided that the letter from the IGP and the US Embassy’s reply were both public papers that could be used as evidence.
The court argued that the petitioners failed to present any proof that Tinubu was tried and found guilty of a crime involving dishonesty.
Additionally, the court ruled that Tinubu’s fine could not be used as a legitimate reason for seeking his disqualification because ten years had passed since the fine was levied against him.
The petition that the LP and Obi brought to invalidate President Tinubu’s election was subsequently dismissed as a result.
The petitioners, among other things, contested Tinubu’s eligibility to run for president on the grounds that he had previously been found guilty of dishonesty and drug trafficking and fined $460,000 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Case No: 93C 4483.
Share your thoughts