Human rights lawyer Chidi Anselm Odinkalu has drawn fresh attention to the controversy surrounding President Bola Tinubu’s old United States case by sharing a video in which Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo explains the $460,000 forfeiture linked to Tinubu.
Keyamo’s explanation was that the money was not drug money. He said the funds were investment proceeds held in US bank accounts and that the $460,000 taken by the US government represented tax on interest earned from those investments.
Keyamo also argued that Tinubu was never indicted or convicted of drug trafficking. He said Tinubu became connected to the investigation because of an address associated with two Nigerians who were being investigated for narcotics offences.
But a second video later presented a very different explanation of the US case.
In that video, a lawyer familiar with US law challenges Keyamo’s account and focuses on the legal meaning of the forfeiture. The lawyer argues that the US government does not simply take money through a forfeiture proceeding without a legal basis and questions Keyamo’s description of the $460,000 as ordinary tax.
The lawyer also challenges the argument that the money could have represented unpaid tax on investment income. The explanation in the video questions how an account opened in 1989 and frozen around 1992 could have generated enough investment income to produce a $460,000 tax liability.
Another major point raised in the second video is the difference between seizure and forfeiture.
The lawyer explains that seizure involves government authorities taking control of property, while forfeiture is a legal process through which the government obtains ownership of property under specified laws.
The video also draws attention to the US court order concerning the $460,000. The court record stated that the funds in the First Heritage Bank account were treated as proceeds of narcotics trafficking or as funds involved in financial transactions prohibited under US law. The forfeiture was made under US federal statutes dealing with narcotics related property and money laundering.
This is the point the second video uses to challenge Keyamo’s tax explanation.
The lawyer argues that describing the money simply as tax does not address the language contained in the court documents concerning the basis for forfeiture.
The video further argues that if the money had been legitimately earned investment income, Tinubu’s legal team could have challenged the government’s claim over the funds by presenting evidence establishing the legitimate source of the money.
It also questions why a person would voluntarily allow such a large amount of money to be forfeited if there were no serious concerns surrounding the funds.
