The NDLEA said no to PDP and Senator Dino Melaye’s request to force them to catch and charge Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu. They want to catch him for not having some money in his bank account many years ago in the United States.
The NDLEA (a law enforcement agency in Nigeria) filed a document at a court saying that a request made by the PDP (a political party) and Melaye (a person) is not valid. They also said that the court cannot take action on it and that it should be thrown out.
The NDLEA said that the PDP and Dino Melaye don’t have enough reasons to object. They don’t have a special interest in the matter that is more important than other Nigerians. They also said that trying to investigate and prosecute Tinubu is an attempt to stop him from running for president in 2023.
The Agency said that the “Order of mandamus” is a fair solution and should only be asked for if someone is being honest. It should not have any secret or hidden results. This means that the court cannot get involved in political matters or cases that are intended to achieve political goals.
The PDP application was based on a court decision in the US. But that decision doesn’t count as evidence in this case, so the lawsuit is pointless and can’t be supported by the law.
Chia Cosmas Depunn, who works for the Agency’s legal team, wrote a statement saying that he supports the Agency’s objection. He signed it under oath, which means he promised to tell the truth.
The NDLEA is a government agency that catches and punishes people who do drugs and other illegal things in Nigeria. They work closely with the United States government, but a person named Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu has never been a part of their discussions with the United States.
He said that the Agency has no record of Tinubu ever getting arrested or investigated for drug or other crimes.
The NDLEA gets help from other people to find out about people doing illegal things with drugs. But the PDP and Melaye never told them any information about Tinubu or anyone else doing bad things with drugs until January 17, 2023.
To explain why the Agency is right, the litigation officer said the following things in a written statement that they swore to tell the truth about.
This lawsuit cannot be heard by the court in its current form.
The first person who started this legal case doesn’t have a good enough reason to do so because their interests are not more important than everyone else’s in Nigeria.
The first person involved only cares about making sure their opponent is not able to run for a political position.
The first person’s interest is related to politics.
The 3rd Respondent is a group that works for the government, but they don’t support any political parties.
The Court has to protect the 3rd person from any political arguments or disagreements.
The lawsuit doesn’t have a good reason, it’s just trying to manipulate the court for political gain.
The situation needs the court to use self-control in making decisions.
The second person is not a leader or manager of the first person.
The second person trying to start this legal case doesn’t have a good enough reason to do so. They don’t have any special interest that is different from anyone else in Nigeria.
An Order of Mandamus is a fair solution.
The Order of Mandamus should only be used for the benefit of the public, with honest intentions.
The Order of Mandamus should only have a direct and obvious result.
He went through the court process and made the following observations:
The United States started a legal action to take ownership of some bank accounts that belonged to the 6th person. This was a civil case.
The court case was about taking away money from drug deals in certain bank accounts.
The lawsuit was not filed against the 6th person.
The suit wasn’t a crime accusation or charge.
In civil forfeiture cases, the evidence must be more likely to be true than not true in order for someone to be found guilty.
In criminal cases, the evidence must show that the person is guilty with no doubt in order to be convicted.
In criminal cases, it is harder to prove someone is guilty than in civil cases.
Magistrate Judge John A Nordberg in Suit No. [number] issued some directions in the United States District Court of Illinois. The code 9C4483 is about getting money from Citi Bank N.A. The court case against Citi Bank International and their funds was dismissed with no chance of it being brought up again.
A judge named John Nordberg in Illinois made some official decisions in a lawsuit. This text is talking about getting money that is being held in Citi Bank N.A. The number “9C4483” might just be a reference number for the process. Citi Bank International gave money and they were part of a legal case, but the case was dismissed permanently.
The District Court’s orders on the Citibank Accounts stop any more actions on them.
Only the orders related to the money held in Heritage Bank, which amounted to $460,000, were straightforward without any special conditions or restrictions.
The US District Court in Illinois decided to follow the agreement reached between the parties involved in the court case about the money held by Heritage Bank and Citibank.
The US District Court of Illinois made a ruling that ended disputes about giving back money as agreed in the Settlement Agreement.
This means that the reason for asking an authority (the 3rd Respondent) to investigate and charge someone (the 6th Respondent) is based on a decision made in a court in Illinois. This decision settled the matter.
The reason the Applicants are suing is not valid in the eyes of the law and cannot be supported.
It’s fair to end this case, but it will be expensive to the person who started it.