Tinubu and Atiku: The Mistake of Confusing Civil Forfeiture with Criminal Conviction

Some political opponents of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu keep trying to use the 1993 civil forfeiture case in the United States to claim he was prosecuted and convicted of a crime. In my opinion, this argument is legally weak and morally wrong.

It is also hard to understand how these same opponents talk about former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the investigation into former Congressman William Jefferson. As a lawyer who works in both the US and Nigeria, I think political disagreements should not cloud the clear differences between allegations, investigations, civil cases, criminal cases, and actual convictions. Each term has its own legal meaning and different consequences.

The documents about President Tinubu are older than the US federal courts’ PACER electronic filing system. I have looked through the court records that are currently available. Based on what I found, there is no record showing that President Tinubu faced criminal charges, was tried, or was convicted of any crime in the United States. What his opponents often refer to is the 1993 forfeiture case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This difference is very important.

The case was an in rem civil forfeiture action. An in rem case targets property, not a person. This is why American forfeiture cases are set up in a way that the property itself is treated as the defendant. While such cases may involve serious claims about the source or use of property, that does not mean the owner has been criminally prosecuted or convicted.

In US law, criminal responsibility is personal. A person accused of a crime has rights during a criminal trial, including the need for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil forfeiture case follows different rules and has a different goal. It is wrong to take the outcome of a civil case and call it a criminal conviction for someone who was never charged, tried, or found guilty.

American legal history recognizes this difference. In United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), the US Supreme Court confirmed the separation between civil forfeitures and criminal punishment. It ruled that these forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Earlier cases, like Various Items of Personal Property v. United States, 282 U.S. 577 (1931), also acknowledged the unique nature of in rem forfeiture cases. These cases do not mean that forfeiture is unimportant. They show that a civil forfeiture case cannot be labeled a criminal trial just to fit a political story.

The inconsistency becomes more obvious when we compare the Tinubu situation with the US investigation that led to the prosecution and conviction of William Jefferson. Jefferson was investigated, charged, prosecuted, and convicted by US federal authorities. Atiku Abubakar’s name came up in certain parts of this investigation, including allegations about a Nigerian telecom deal. But Atiku was not the one found guilty in Jefferson’s case. Jefferson was. This difference is significant.

Those defending Atiku against claims of wrongdoing from the Jefferson case often say that just being mentioned in an investigation does not mean someone is guilty. They are right. No responsible lawyer should say that Atiku was convicted simply because he was named in an investigation that resulted in another person's prosecution and conviction.

But this same basic legal principle should also apply to Bola Ahmed Tinubu. In discussions about the Jefferson case, Tinubu's opponents, including Atiku, understand the difference. They acknowledge that Jefferson was convicted, while Atiku was not. They would rightly object if someone tried to connect Jefferson’s conviction to Atiku just because of their association.

So, the question arises: Why should Tinubu be judged by a different legal standard? If the investigation involving Atiku cannot be turned into a criminal conviction against him, then a civil forfeiture case cannot be treated as a criminal conviction against Tinubu. In both cases, we need to ask the same questions: Was the person charged? Was there a trial? Was there a criminal conviction? Political talk cannot replace those legal questions.

This comparison is helpful because it shows why understanding legal terms matters. Jefferson’s case is an example of a federal criminal case: investigation, charges, trial, and conviction. Regardless of the political implications for Atiku, the fact remains that Jefferson was convicted, while Atiku was not.

In Tinubu’s case, the proceeding often cited by his opponents was civil and in rem. To label its outcome as Tinubu’s “criminal conviction” is to give it a legal significance that it does not have. In a democracy, citizens have the right to check the records of their leaders. Political opponents can criticize them too. But criticism must be based on legal facts. One can argue about the political meaning of allegations, but one cannot create a criminal conviction where none exists in the court records.

The rule is simple: allegation is not conviction; investigation is not prosecution; association is not guilt; and civil forfeiture does not equal a criminal conviction of the person whose property is involved.

There is a bigger constitutional principle at play. The presumption of innocence is not just for people we support politically. The US Supreme Court noted in Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) that this is a key principle in criminal law. The Nigerian Constitution also guarantees that anyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Political discussions should not ignore this principle by claiming someone is guilty when there is no legal judgment.

There is a clear inconsistency in saying that Atiku cannot be called a convicted criminal because Jefferson was the one prosecuted and convicted, while at the same time treating Tinubu as a criminal because of a civil forfeiture case where he was never prosecuted or convicted.

The law cannot have two standards: one for friends and another for opponents. If we agree that Atiku is not a convicted criminal just because of his mention in the Jefferson investigation, then we must also accept that a civil forfeiture case involving Tinubu cannot be turned into a criminal conviction.

We should also be careful with our words. Terms like “criminal,” “convict,” and “conviction” have specific meanings and serious reputational impacts. Saying someone was criminally convicted is not just an opinion; it is a claim about a real legal event. There must be a criminal accusation, trial, and a clear judgment: the court, the charge, the case, and the judgment.

Where is the indictment or conviction against President Tinubu in the United States? This is the question for those who keep saying he was investigated, tried, and convicted. It is not enough to keep referring to civil forfeiture documents. Those documents show the existence and outcome of a forfeiture case; they do not make it a criminal judgment just by being repeated in political speeches or social media.

This does not mean anyone has to support Tinubu politically. It does not stop genuine examination of the allegations. It just calls for consistent thinking and respect for the law.

In the end, the Atiku, Jefferson comparison helps us see that Jefferson was prosecuted and convicted. Atiku was not convicted in that case. This distinction matters because legal responsibility cannot be transferred from the convicted person to another individual just because their name came up in an investigation.

By the same logic, no matter how one interprets the 1993 forfeiture case, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was not criminally convicted. A civil judgment cannot be turned into a criminal conviction through political talk. The law should mean the same thing for everyone, regardless of their political affiliation. If Atiku is protected from being called convicted because of the Jefferson case, then the same should apply to Tinubu regarding civil forfeiture.