The Bola Tinubu drug case explained in layman terms

Sometime in 2011, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in a sting operation arrested one Mr Ezengbuma Okonkita, a renowned Nigerian politician. He was arrested and immediately charged to court for embezzlement of public funds and money laundering. 

High figures of money were found lodged in his different bank accounts in different currencies; the money which he admitted had been embezzled. 

The Efcc instituted a criminal action against him but his lawyers advised him to go into a plea bargain with the Efcc since there is incontrovertible evidence stacked against him and his putting up a defense will expose him to lengthy criminal charges and lengthy trial time. 

He negotiated a deal where he insisted that he is ready to forfeit all the money found in his account to the government but on the paramount condition that he will not be sent to jail by the EFCC. 

The Efcc for reasons best known to them accepted the deal and he forfeited the money to the Nigerian government and the criminal case was brought to a close.

                      **************
I painted the above hypothetical scenario so as to draw similarity to what happened with the case of Mr Ahmed Tinubu v The US Government where he struck a deal with the US government and the contents of the deal is for him to forfeit $460,000 to the US government and the prosecution will not send him to jail.

Mr Ezengbuma Okonkita or his supporters cannot later in the future claim that he was never found guilty because he was not sent to prison.

Plea bargain and forfeiture of proceed of crime only takes place when the accused person admits his guilt and due to the fact that there is a stack of evidence against him alluding to the fact that he committed the crime he decided to strike a deal with the prosecutor which will involve him remitting the proceed of crimes back to the government. You can not forfeit your property to the government or to the court if you are not admitting to committing the offense you are charged with, that is not how criminal justice works.

Money is not forfeited except if a crime has been committed or the money in question is the proceeds of a crime. If a crime has not been committed, the person asked to forfeit his hard-earned money would put up a defense and make his case but where no case is made, it simply means that the accused person is admitting guilt or admitting the criminal charges leveled against him by the prosecution.

Mr Ahmed Tinubu, the president-elect is not a father Christmas to have forfeited a whooping sum of $460,000 to the US government for no reason; he only entered into a plea bargain with the prosecutor where he agreed to forfeit money and be kept out of prison and that is what is called plea deal in the criminal justice system.

Forfeiture in layman’s definition simply means the loss or giving up of something as a penalty for committing a crime or giving up something which is a proceeds of crime.

When the Government has a strong case, the Government may offer the defendant a plea deal or the accused person may by himself request for a plea deal to avoid trial and perhaps reduce his exposure to a more lengthy sentence. A defendant may only plead guilty if they actually committed the crime and admits to doing so in open court before the judge and will accept as part of the bargain to forfeit some of his belonging to the government.

It is as simple as this! 

It is now very embarrassing that some senior citizens, especially reputable senior lawyers from the APC camp who obviously know the facts and the law will for the sake of politics throw caution to the wind and try to twist the facts to deceive the general and to confuse their gullible supporters.  Instead of sticking to this stale watery defense that the $460,000 forfeited was for taxes or was for a fine in civil forfeiture, they should rather come up with something else more concrete and believable.