Connect with us

Politics

Nigeria’s President-elect’s Family Tied To Controversial London Mansion Purchase

Published

on

 

A report by Bloomberg released on Tuesday claims that company documents have revealed, that an offshore owner of an $11 million London mansion, which was targeted for confiscation as part of an investigation into one of Nigeria’s biggest corruption scandals, is controlled by the son of the country’s President-elect, Bola Tinubu.

 

 

The documents indicate that a firm owned by Tinubu’s son purchased the property in 2017. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Tinubu himself was involved in the acquisition.

 

President Muhammadu Buhari had visited the London property in August 2021, almost four years after the purchase was made.

 

Tinubu has long faced questions regarding the source of his family’s wealth, including during the recent election campaign when he and his representatives were repeatedly questioned by local and international media.

 

Tinubu has consistently maintained that his wealth was acquired through his inheritance of real estate, sound investments, and his previous employment as an accountant at Deloitte LLP and as an executive at the Nigerian subsidiary of Mobil Oil in the 1980s and early 1990s.

 

He even cited Warren Buffett as a role model for his financial success in an interview with the BBC leading up to the election.

 

However, recently uncovered corporate documents reveal that Tinubu’s 37-year-old son, Oluwaseyi, is the primary shareholder of Aranda Overseas Corp., an offshore company that paid £9 million ($10.8 million) to Deutsche Bank for the purchase of an extravagant three-story residence in the posh St. John’s Wood neighborhood of north London.

 

The property features amenities such as an eight-car driveway, electric gates, two gardens, and a gym. It is situated in an area popular among American bankers. While there is no evidence that Tinubu was involved in the acquisition of the property, the revelation is likely to fuel further questions about the source of the family’s wealth.

 

Despite attempts to reach out for comment, both Bola Tinubu’s spokesman and his son Oluwaseyi Tinubu have not responded to emails, phone calls, and text messages. A British lawyer listed as Aranda’s agent in the UK has also declined to comment, citing confidentiality rules.

 

During the time of the purchase, Nigeria’s government was pursuing the former owner of the property, Kolawole Aluko, who was accused of fleeing while owing the country a debt of over $1.5 billion in oil-trading. The state was also trying to seize the luxurious property and other assets it suspected Aluko had obtained through illicit means.

 

Aluko has denied all accusations of wrongdoing and claims that a court judgment earlier this year clearing his former business partner has cleared his name. However, the ruling is being contested by Nigeria’s anti-graft agency.

 

Bola Tinubu, aged 71, emerged victorious in the February election as the candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress and is expected to succeed his political ally, President Buhari, on May 29. Tinubu played a pivotal role as a power broker in the opposition party merger that helped bring Buhari into power in 2015.

Despite President Buhari’s campaign promise to combat corruption, Nigeria’s ranking in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has declined over the past eight years.

 

Bola Tinubu, who previously served as the governor of Lagos state, has faced persistent accusations of corruption and violations of the law, which he has denied.

 

In 1993, he relinquished $460,000 to settle a lawsuit in Chicago after US federal authorities alleged that bank accounts in his name contained the profits of heroin trafficking. Tinubu’s legal team has stated that he was never charged in connection with the case.

 

In August 2021, while Bola Tinubu was staying at the 7,000-square foot London home, he received a visit from President Buhari, as reported by the Lagos-based newspaper Premium Times.

According to documents obtained from the Pandora Papers leak of offshore companies data, shareholders and directors of Aranda, which purchased the London property, were Adegboyega Oyetola, the former governor of Osun state, and Elusanmi Eludoyin, the head of a Nigerian property group, from its establishment 24 years ago until at least 2010.

 

However, requests for comment from Oyetola’s spokesman and Eludoyin went unanswered.

 

The Newly-filed documents in response to UK anti-money laundering rules and viewed by Bloomberg this year revealed that Tinubu’s son, an advertising entrepreneur who played a prominent role in his father’s presidential campaign, has controlled Aranda, registered in the British Virgin Islands, since June 2011.

 

The company was registered as an overseas entity in the UK on January 20th.

 

During Buhari’s first term, his administration launched legal proceedings against Diezani Alison-Madueke, who was the oil minister for five years until 2015.

 

The government also took action against two businessmen, Kolawole Aluko and Olajide Omokore, who secured lucrative contracts during her tenure.

 

The US government filed a lawsuit for forfeiture in Texas in 2017, accusing Aluko and Omokore of bribing the minister and failing to pay the state-owned energy company for most of the crude oil they received.

 

Alison-Madueke, who is based in London, has denied the allegations and is challenging multiple forfeiture orders issued by Nigerian courts. She has also accused the anti-corruption agency of preventing her from defending herself in criminal proceedings.

 

 

In June 2016, a federal judge in Abuja, the Nigerian capital, granted a request by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to seize over a dozen properties owned by Aluko, both in Nigeria and abroad, including the St. John’s Wood house.

 

The forfeiture order was still in effect when Tinubu’s son acquired the property out of receivership 16 months later.

 

According to court filings, the forfeiture order granted in June 2016 against Kolawole Aluko’s assets, including the St. John’s Wood property, was made on an interim basis and was pending the conclusion of an ongoing investigation into Aluko, as of at least the end of 2018.

 

Aluko’s lawyer, Tokunbo Jaiye-Agoro, declined to comment on the forfeiture case, citing that it is still “sub-judice.”

 

In late 2016, Deutsche Bank foreclosed on the house owned by Aluko and appointed receivers to sell it. However, it is not clear whether the Nigerian government was aware of the lender’s takeover of the house as it pursued the seizure process.

 

According to court filings, Aluko had taken out loans using other properties as collateral. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alleged that the buildings were purchased with the proceeds of crime, and that Aluko had fled the country to avoid answering the fraud allegations against him.

 

In February, a Nigerian court acquitted Olajide Omokore of charges related to the same allegations. However, the EFCC, which accused Omokore of defrauding the state energy firm of $1.6 billion, has said it will appeal.

 

Aluko was removed from the indictment because he was not in the country at the time, and his current whereabouts are unknown.

 

Meanwhile, Omokore’s lawyer has objected to any continued linking of his client’s name to corrupt practices.

 

The Nigerian government officials, including Buhari’s spokesman, the Attorney General, the Nigerian National Petroleum Co. Ltd., and the EFCC, did not respond to requests for comment.

 

In October 2017, Tinubu’s son’s company, Aranda, bought one of the properties that was being targeted by the Nigerian government in its pursuit of Aluko and his assets.

 

The property in question is still owned by Aranda, and according to UK land records, there is currently no mortgage registered to it.

 

Aranda did not purchase the house directly from Aluko but from a UK unit of Deutsche Bank AG. The bank had foreclosed on the property and appointed receivers to sell it a year earlier.

 

Aluko had acquired the mansion via a BVI company in 2013 and paid £11.95 million, according to Premium Times. Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the matter.

 

It’s worth noting that the property in question is not the only luxury asset that Aluko has been linked to. In 2017, the US Department of Justice accused him and Omokore of using illicit funds to buy a $50 million penthouse in New York, a $80 million yacht, and several other assets.

 

According to Aluko’s lawyer, Jaiye-Agoro, his client has no knowledge of Aranda or the individuals behind the company and was not aware of the sale of the property, as Deutsche Bank had foreclosed on the house.

 

It is unclear whether the Nigerian authorities had requested the UK’s National Crime Agency to freeze the property.

 

The UK Home Office declined to comment on the matter. In March 2021, the US Justice Department announced that it had seized assets worth over $53 million, including a 65-meter superyacht and luxury homes in California and New York, purchased by Aluko for more than $160 million using what it considers to be the proceeds of corruption.

 

 

Politics

Ondo Election Legal Battle Intensifies As PDP’s Ajayi Files Appeal

Published

on

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2024 Ondo State governorship election, Agboola Ajayi, has filed an appeal against the December 2 ruling of the Federal High Court in Akure.

The court had dismissed his lawsuit challenging the eligibility of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, and his running mate, Olayide Owolabi Adelami.

Ajayi, in his notice of appeal dated December 7, 2024, alleged that Justice T.B. Adegoke erred in dismissing his case, which was marked FHC/AK/CS/99/2024.

READ MORE: Davido Spotted With Burna Boy’s Mother At Tony Elumelu’s All White Party

The PDP candidate’s initial lawsuit raised concerns over discrepancies in the certificates submitted by Aiyedatiwa to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Ajayi argued that these discrepancies violated electoral laws and called into question Aiyedatiwa’s qualifications to run for office.

Key Allegations in Appeal

Ajayi presented multiple grounds for his appeal, accusing the Federal High Court of failing to properly evaluate the evidence before it.

He claimed that: “Unexplained Certificate Discrepancies: Ajayi stated that the trial court failed to address “unexplained and irreconcilable differences” in the names on Aiyedatiwa’s certificates.

According to him, “The 1st Respondent submitted different certificates with different names that were not the same. Throughout the dispute before the trial court, the 1st Respondent never presented a Deed Poll to explain the irreconcilable differences.”

Failure to Grant Reliefs: He criticized the court for dismissing his reliefs despite what he described as compelling evidence.

Ajayi argued, “The lower court failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented before it, which was essentially documentary. The refusal to grant the reliefs in the face of credible evidence on record occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.”

Neglect of Documentary Evidence: Ajayi contended that the court neglected its duty to evaluate critical statutory documents, which he said were central to proving his case.

He added, “The court was called upon to examine and evaluate the documentary evidence but failed to do so, instead relying on extraneous matters without giving appropriate consideration to whether those assertions were correct.”

Standing to Sue: The PDP candidate argued that the trial court erred by dismissing his legal standing to challenge Aiyedatiwa’s nomination. He noted, “The issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate is both intra- and inter-party affairs of an interested party in an election, as in this instant case.”

Ajayi is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s judgment and grant the reliefs he sought at the trial court.

These include an order invalidating Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy due to the certificate discrepancies and setting aside the December 2 ruling.

Specifically, he requested, “An order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State, delivered on the 2nd of December, 2024, by Hon. Justice T.B. Adegoke.”

“An order granting the reliefs sought by the appellants as plaintiffs before the trial court.”

Ajayi also faulted the court’s interpretation of Section 29(1)-(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022. He argued that the provisions were given a “narrow and restrictive” reading, which ignored the broader intent of the law.

The appeal is the latest development in the heated political contest between the PDP and APC in Ondo State.

Legal experts believe the outcome of the case could significantly impact the governorship race.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Adeleke Congratulates Ghanaian President-Elect, Mahama

Published

on

 

Osun State Governor, Senator Ademola Adeleke has congratulated the newly elected president of Ghana, John Mahama.

This was gleaned in a government house statement in Osogbo on Monday in which Gov Adeleke described President Mahama as “a true democrat and a genuine friend of Nigeria”

Gov Adeleke stated, “we have been sharing deep thoughts about the true essence of democracy and the imperative of respect for people’s will as the bedrock of virile democratic state.

ALSO READ: Midterm Scorecard: Adeleke Appreciates Osun Residents, Assures On More Democratic Dividends

“All through his days in the opposition, he adopted the best of democratic model with unbending faith in the capacity of voters to decide and the necessity of the system to accept the voters’ will as expressed without any equivocation. His faith in the electorate amidst hard work of electioneering campaigns paid off with a resounding victory at the polls.

“I further commend the ruling party for conceding defeat without attempting any electoral hijack. This was a demonstration of electoral maturity worthy of emulation by actors within the Nigerian space.

“I rejoice with my dear brother as our dreams come true by the grace of God and the people. As he prepares to return to the State House, I have no doubt that he will take Ghana to greater heights.

“I call for a closer, more robust relationship between Nigeria and Ghana. Both countries must deepen cooperation under mutual respect and opportunities. Our brotherly relationship should extend to the sub-national level for the benefits of citizens and residents of our dear nations.”

Continue Reading

Politics

SERAP Urges Akpabio, Abbas To Assess Human Rights Impacts Of Tax Reform Bills

Published

on

 

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged Nigeria’s Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas “to urgently assess the human rights impacts of Nigeria’s reform bills currently being discussed by the National Assembly including on Nigerians living in poverty.”

According to the SERAP said, “any discussion and consideration of the tax reform bills must ensure full compliance with provisions of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations and commitments.”

The call was contained in a letter dated December 7, 2024, under the signature of its deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, in which the SERAP stated, inter alia, “The assessments should be transparent, include public participation, and shape the provisions and measures that are ultimately passed. The outcome of any such assessments should be widely published.”

ALSO READ: Like America, Like Ghana: Opposition Defeats Ruling Party In Presidential Election

The SERAP urged Akpabio, and Abbas “to pass a resolution directing Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to hold Nigeria’s state governors to account on their spending of trillions of naira of revenue derived from taxes including VATs collected by their states since 2015 and to ensure the recovery of any proceeds of corruption.”

The letter, read in part: “SERAP urges you to ensure the inclusion in the tax reform bills of transparency and accountability mechanisms to ensure that any revenue derived from taxes covered under the bills are not mismanaged, diverted or pocketed by politicians, their family members and close associates.

“SERAP notes that Nigerian authorities have the discretion to develop laws on taxation most appropriate to their circumstances.

“However, the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and human rights and anticorruption treaties to which the country is a state party impose limits on the discretion of the authorities in the development of any such laws.

“Our preliminary review of the provisions of the tax reform bills shows that the bills contain some provisions that are antithetical to human rights and the rule of law.

“For example, section 28(2)(c) of the Tax Administration bill among others, requires financial institutions including banks to provide to tax authorities ‘the names, addresses, or any other information of new or existing customers.’

“Under section 28(4), financial institutions must make ‘additional disclosure” about their customers ‘if it is required by a notice signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant tax authority.’

“These provisions, especially the phrases ‘any other information’ and ‘additional disclosure’, if implemented, could be used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to privacy of customers.

“The risks of violations of human rights are illustrated by the absence in the bills of sufficient safeguards against abuse of access to personal data of customers.

“The provisions also give little or no consideration to data protection, thereby increasing the risks of misuse by public authorities of a customer’s personal details including their home address.

“Another troubling provision of the tax reform bills is section 57 of the Tax Administration bill which grants broad, extensive and intrusive powers to tax authorities which may be misused to undermine Nigerians’ human rights.

“In particular, section 57(1) provides that ‘an authorised officer of the relevant tax authority shall have free access to all land, buildings, places, books and documents, in the custody or under the control of a person, public officer, or institution, for the purpose of inspecting the books or documents.’

“Such official will also have free access to ‘any property, process or matter which the officer considers necessary or relevant for the purpose of collecting any tax.’

“Under subsection 2, ‘the relevant tax authority shall take immediate possession of [any] removable media and the related removable equipment or computer used to access the stored documents on the media in order to prevent the accidental or intentional destruction, removal or alteration of records and documents.’

“Section 57(5) seems to pre-empt the nature of any judicial authorisation required for tax official ‘enter any private dwelling’ by prescribing that such authorisation will ‘be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue or such lesser period as the judicial officer considers appropriate.’

“Under subsection 6, the tax official is required to ‘produce the written authorisation and evidence of identity “on first entering the private dwelling’. The official will only produce such evidence subsequently if they consider it reasonable to do so.

“These provisions are broadly worded and could be misused to violate Nigerians’ human rights.

“The provisions also do not contain any special safeguards which means that the broad, extensive and intrusive powers granted to tax authorities could be arbitrarily exercised without any accountability.

“Section 57 also does not contain any explicit provisions that would allow the court to examine the lawfulness or necessity of any authorisation before or after any entering.

“The provisions of section 81 of the Tax Administration bill essentially oust the jurisdiction of the court in pending tax matters by stating that ‘the pendency of a legal proceeding shall not affect the performance of the duties or obligations of any taxable person under this Act or any other tax law.’

“The provisions could be misused to infringe the rights to equality and the right of access to courts, denying the right of an effective remedy to any aggrieved party.

“Several other provisions of the tax bills lack mechanisms for effective oversight and accountability, as required by the rule of law in a democratic society, thereby increasing the risks of abuse of power or arbitrariness. The provisions could be misused to violate Nigerians’ right to property and fair hearing.

“The tax bills also do not seem to contain provisions for a fair balance between the authorities’ powers to collect taxes and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.

“The absence of provisions in the tax bills on meaningful judicial oversight and review and accountability procedures would also undermine the rights of Nigerians including to privacy and disproportionately affect disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups.

“Under human rights law, states including Nigeria are required to make the promotion and protection of human rights central to their tax systems. Nigeria needs a rights-based tax system that works for the people and not the politicians, their family members and close associates.

“The country also needs transparent, democratic and rights-aligned tax reforms to unlock the maximum available resources for the full realisation of human rights.

“Furthermore, there are credible reports that several state governors continue to divert or mismanage the revenue derived from taxes, impeding the funding of public goods and services that are crucial for the progressive realisation of human rights.

“In many states, millions of Nigerians continue to be denied access to essential public services such as water and basic sanitation while millions of children of school age roam the streets.

“SERAP is concerned that growing reports of corruption in the use of tax revenue and other public resources continue to disproportionately affect poor Nigerians and other most vulnerable segments of the population.

“SERAP is concerned that the opposition by some state governors against the tax reform bills may be politically motivated and reduce the tax payable to the national treasury. State governors should constructively engage in good faith in the processes to adopt a national tax system for the country.

“We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken in the consideration of the tax reform bills.

“If the offending provisions of the tax reform bills including those outlined above are not addressed and brought in conformity with human rights standards and safeguards, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel you and other members of the National Assembly to comply with our request in the public interest.

“SERAP notes that the tax reform bills, if properly aligned with human rights standards, would enhance the ability of the Federal Government, states and local governments to fulfil their human rights obligations and adequately fund public services essential for human rights.

“However, without transparency and accountability, revenue derived from taxes may not be spent to combat poverty and fund development as well as provide essential public goods and services for Nigerians.

“The National Assembly has the constitutional responsibility to conduct and publish human rights impact assessments of the tax reform bills to ensure that proposed reforms best protect, advance and fulfill people’s human rights.

“SERAP also urges you to revise and repeal several of the provisions of the bills, particularly the Tax Administration bill.

“SERAP urges you to include provisions in the tax reform bills that will ensure that Nigerians have access to all relevant data and information on fiscal policy and government revenues, including from the corporate sector.

“According to our information, members of the National Assembly are currently discussing Nigeria’s tax bills which primarily aim to ‘provide uniform procedures for a consistent and efficient administration of tax laws in order to- (a) facilitate tax compliance by taxpayers; and (b) optimise tax revenue.’

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2022. Biztellers, powered by Alphaxristi.