US Drug Case: NDLEA Explains Why Tinubu Can’t Be Prosecuted

The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA, has risen to the defence of President-elect, Bola Tinubu, listing grounds why it cannot prosecute the soon-to-be-inaugurated president of Nigeria in court.

This is contained in a preliminary objection to a suit instituted by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP and the party’s governorship candidate for Kogi, Dino Melaye, at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The litigants are seeking an order of mandamus to compel the NDLEA to arrest and prosecute Tinubu over alleged forfeiture of some funds in his bank accounts over his alleged involvement in drug trafficking.

Tinubu has denied any wrongdoing and his camp said it was a civil forfeiture and not criminal in nature.

But PDP and Melaye, a former senator representing Kogi West, said Tinubu, who was twice governor of Lagos State has a case to answer since funds traced as proceeds of narcotics dealings as filed in a US court were found in his bank accounts.

However, the anti-narcotic agent through its Director of Prosecution and Legal Services, Joseph Nbona Sunday, said the applicants “do not have a locus standi; they do not possess an interest peculiar to them and above the interests of all other Nigerians, the only underlying specific interest of the 1st Applicant then becomes political in nature.”

The PDP is listed as 1st applicant while Melaye is listed as 2nd applicant.

According to the agency, “Order of mandamus is an equitable remedy and should only be applied for in good faith and should not produce an indirect or underlying result.

“The Doctrine of Judicial Self-restraint precludes this Honourable Court from delving into matters with political colouration or matters aimed at getting direct or indirect political goals.”

The agency’s sworn affidavit in support of its preliminary objection made by its litigation officer, who’s the Directorate of Prosecution and Legal Services, Chia Cosmas Depunn averred, “That this suit as presently constituted does not confer the Court with jurisdiction.

“That the 1st Applicant does not have locus standi to institute this suit as it does not possess interest peculiar to it and above the interests of all other Nigerians.

“That the only peculiar interest of the 1st Applicant is to get rid of the 6th Respondent as a candidate of a rival political party.

“That the interest of the 1st Applicant is political in nature.

“That the 3rd Respondent is an independent Government Agency that has no political colouration or affiliation,” the agency said.

It further stated, “That the Court has a duty to insulate the 3rd Respondent from political controversies.

“That the suit is baseless, frivolous and brought in bad faith with the sole aim of achieving a political objective using the instrumentality of the Court process.

“That the facts and circumstances of the case require the Court to apply the doctrine of judicial self-restraint.