Counsel to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Aloy Ejimakor, has defended President Bola Tinubu over the long-running controversy surrounding funds forfeited in the United States.
Ejimakor argued that the 1993 forfeiture of $460,000 linked to Tinubu involved a civil asset forfeiture rather than a criminal conviction. According to him, U.S. law clearly separates the two legal processes.
He made the argument in an opinion article, where he examined the legal issues surrounding the case.
Ejimakor explains legal distinction
Drawing on his legal training and years of practice in the United States, Ejimakor said many people lose assets through civil proceedings without facing criminal convictions. He added that American law clearly distinguishes civil asset forfeiture from criminal forfeiture.
“Under U.S. law, the distinction between a criminal conviction and a civil asset forfeiture is foundational and statutorily distinguished from each other,” he said.
Court records support claim
Ejimakor said certified court records classify Tinubu’s case as a civil action against property instead of a criminal case against an individual.
He explained that U.S. authorities filed the case under civil forfeiture laws. He added that both parties later reached a settlement without any judicial finding of guilt.
“Truth be told, this is not what happened in the Tinubu matter.”
Supreme Court ruling strengthens argument
Furthermore, Ejimakor cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Ursery (1996). He said the ruling confirmed that civil forfeiture targets property rather than individuals. Therefore, he argued that the forfeiture did not amount to a criminal conviction.
Lawyer addresses criticism
However, Ejimakor acknowledged that critics could still raise moral or political concerns over the allegations surrounding the forfeited funds. Nevertheless, he insisted that the legal position remains unchanged.
“Tinubu was never charged, tried, or convicted of a crime.”
He argued that anyone who equates civil asset forfeiture with criminal guilt misinterprets U.S. law and established judicial precedents.
Opinion based on law
Finally, Ejimakor stressed that his position reflects legal principles rather than political support for the President.
He noted that the Tinubu administration prosecuted him over his alleged participation in the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest. Therefore, he said his legal opinion should not be mistaken for political loyalty.
“And this is just an unbiased restatement of the black letter law, not any support for President Tinubu.”
Read also: Nnamdi Kanu sacks lawyer Ejiofor, revokes authority to speak for IPOB
