Lawyer Aloy Ejimakor has argued that President Bola Tinubu’s 1993 asset forfeiture case in the United States raises moral questions but does not amount to a criminal conviction.
In an opinion article, Ejimakor said that his years of legal training and practice in the United States had exposed him to several cases in which individuals forfeited assets yet were never convicted of any criminal offence.
According to him, U.S. law clearly distinguishes between a criminal conviction and a civil asset forfeiture, with each governed by different legal principles.
Ejimakor explained that certified court records relating to Tinubu’s case show that the forfeiture of $460,000 from bank accounts linked to the President in 1993 was handled strictly as a civil in rem proceeding rather than a criminal in personam case.
He noted that the proceedings were conducted under 18 U.S.C. § 981, a law that allows the U.S. government to seize property believed to be connected to unlawful activity without establishing the owner’s criminal liability.
According to him, the case—United States v. Funds in Account No. 263226700 et al., No. 93 C 4483 (N.D. Ill.)—was filed as a civil action against the funds themselves and ended in a negotiated settlement, without any judicial finding of guilt against Tinubu.
Ejimakor contrasted this with 18 U.S.C. § 982, which governs criminal forfeiture and requires a criminal conviction before assets can be forfeited.
“That is not what happened in the Tinubu matter,” he said.
He further pointed to the 1996 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), which affirmed that civil in rem forfeitures are remedial civil actions directed at property rather than criminal punishments imposed on individuals.
According to Ejimakor, the ruling reinforces the legal position that the funds linked to Tinubu were treated as property allegedly connected to unlawful conduct, not as evidence of criminal liability on the part of the President.
While acknowledging that critics are entitled to question the moral implications of the allegations or debate Tinubu’s suitability for public office, Ejimakor insisted that such arguments should not be confused with the legal facts.
“The legal reality remains that President Tinubu was never charged, tried or convicted of any criminal offence. Equating a civil asset forfeiture with criminal guilt misrepresents both the statutory framework and binding judicial precedents,” he stated.
Ejimakor added that his position should not be interpreted as an endorsement of President Tinubu, stressing that he was merely presenting what he described as the correct legal interpretation of the case.
He recalled that he was detained for several days in October last year over his alleged participation in the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest and noted that he is still standing trial, with his next court appearance scheduled for 31 July.
