Could President Tinubu Face Arrest in the U.S.? Aloy Ejimakor Explains the Legal Reality

Public debate in Nigeria recently surged following claims surrounding President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s absence from the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 81) in New York, where Vice President Kashim Shettima led the Nigerian delegation. Critics and political commentary suggested that the President avoided U.S. soil due to legal risks tied to a 1993 U.S. civil asset forfeiture case.

Providing clarity on the matter, Aloy Ejimakor, special counsel to IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu, outlined the statutory mechanics governing United States law, explaining why these claims distort the legal reality.

Civil Forfeiture vs. Criminal Liability under U.S. Law

Ejimakor—who trained and practiced law in the United States—emphasized that U.S. jurisprudence draws a foundational distinction between criminal convictions and civil asset forfeitures.

       ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
       │              U.S. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS                    │
       └──────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────┘
                                  │
           ┌──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┐
           ▼                                             ▼
   CIVIL FORFEITURE                              CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
   (18 U.S.C. § 981)                             (18 U.S.C. § 982)
   • Action against property (In Rem)            • Action against person (In Personam)
   • Focuses on assets tied to unlawful activity   • Requires formal charges & trial
   • Does NOT establish criminal guilt           • Results in criminal conviction/punishment

• Civil In Rem Forfeiture (18 U.S.C. § 981): Governs actions direct against property or funds linked to alleged unlawful conduct, rather than establishing personal criminal guilt. The 1993 case involving $460,000 in bank accounts associated with President Tinubu was resolved under this civil statutory mechanism via a compromise settlement without a judicial finding of guilt.

• Criminal In Personam Forfeiture (18 U.S.C. § 982): Requires formal criminal charges, a trial, and a finding of guilt resulting in a criminal conviction.

Ejimakor cited the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), which confirmed that civil in rem forfeitures are non-criminal remedial actions against property, distinctly separate from criminal punishment.

Key Takeaways on the President’s Legal Standing

1. No Arrest Warrant or Indictment: President Tinubu was never charged, tried, indicted, or convicted of a criminal offense in the United States.

2. Head of State Immunity: Under international law and U.S. legal precedent, sitting heads of state enjoy foreign sovereign immunity (ratione personae), protecting them from prosecution or arrest by foreign jurisdictions while holding office.

3. Moral vs. Legal Arguments: While political critics leverage past forfeiture allegations to raise questions regarding moral fitness or public ethics, Ejimakor pointed out that conflating civil asset forfeiture with criminal guilt misinterprets black-letter U.S. law.