The Drug Law Case Labelled Against Tinubu Stands—American Mental Health Counsellor, Jeffery Gutterman
Dr. Jeffery Gutterman, a retired American mental health counsellor, has voiced his concerns about the Nigerian president-elect, Ahmed Bola Tinubu. Dr. Gutterman insists that the drug law case labelled against Tinubu stands and, therefore, should disqualify him from becoming the Nigerian president.
He cited section 137(1)(d) of the constitution which states that anyone fined for any offenses in the past should be disqualified from becoming president. This section applies to Tinubu’s forfeiture of over $460,000 due to drug crimes in Chicago in 1993.
From his verified twitter page, the excerpts reads
To @aonanuga1956: If you had any self-respect, then you would never be a spokesperson for Tinubu. I wouldn't care if his drug trafficking was 100 years ago. He's unfit. And you tried to deceive us by misrepresenting the Constitution (see 1st tweet). Tinubu = disqualified. Period. pic.twitter.com/GGMPKrHHwZ
— Dr. Jeffrey Guterman (@JeffreyGuterman) March 26, 2023
On Saturday, March 26, 2023, the presidential-elect spokesperson condemned the Obidiots and argued that Tinubu’s cocaine racket in the United States happened more than 10 years ago and, therefore, cannot be used as a basis to truncate his victory at the polls last month. The spokesperson also argued that Tinubu’s established drug trafficking case in Chicago was already statute-barred and, therefore, could not be used to sack him from the presidency.
However, Ayo Obe, another surrogate of Tinubu’s, cited section 137(1)(e) of the constitution that disqualifies a Nigerian from being elected president within 10 years of a conviction for offenses brought by the Code of Conduct Bureau. Mrs. Obe left out section 137(1)(d) of the constitution, which disqualifies anyone who has been fined for any offenses in the past from becoming president. This section does not give any timeline under which a convict can be released to run for Nigeria’s presidency.
In 2014, the Supreme Court defined forfeiture as punishment for an offense under Nigerian criminal statutes. The court ruled that “the word ‘forfeiture’ means – ‘the divestiture of property without compensation. The loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of duty.” The court further stated that “a person who has forfeited property on the basis of a crime cannot be entitled to indemnity. Forfeiture is a form of punishment. There is no indemnity in our criminal procedure.
