The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) has told the federal high court, Abuja, that it has no record of Tinubu as an drug peddler in the United States of America.

It said this in a preliminary objection filed against a case instituted by the Peoples Democratic Party and Senator Dino Melaye, asking the court to remove Tinubu as president-elect.

In the court paper, the agency argued that the PDP and Melaye “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”.

READ ALSO: US Court Releases Documents Linking Tinubu to Largescale Drug Peddling

The agency further opposed the applicants’ prayers, saying the order of the US District Court of the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division has no probative value on the basis that “the said proceeding was given ‘with prejudice’, and that the said proceedings and judgment have no judicial value”.

A supporting affidavit deposed to by Chia Cosmas Depunn, a litigation officer in the legal department of the agency, highlighted a number of grounds why it is opposing the application.

NDLEA maintained that it has a history of smooth relationship with the US authorities and at no time did the name Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu “by whatever acronyms or combination of names ever feature in the exchanges we had with the United States of America”.

According to the Vanguard, some of the averments in the supporting affidavit read partly, “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.

“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.

“That the 2nd Applicant is not an officer or executive or management committee of the 1st Applicant.

“That the 2nd Applicant has no locus standi to institute this suit as he does not possess any interest peculiar to him and above the interests of all other Nigerians

“That an Order of Mandamus is an equitable remedy.

READ ALSO: Tinubu’s Administration To Conduct National Census As Buhari Approves Postponement

“That the Order of Mandamus must be applied in good faith to promote the public interest.

“That the Order of Mandamus should not produce an indirect or underlying result.

“That he has gone through the supporting judicial proceedings and noted as follows:

“That the matter was a civil forfeiture proceeding in rem brought by the United States of America as plaintiff against certain accounts held in the name of the 6th Respondent.

“That the object of the suit was to forfeit the funds or a certain part thereof in the said accounts as proceeds of illicit traffic in drugs.

“That the suit was not taken out against the person of the 6th Respondent.

“That the suit was not a criminal indictment or charge.

“That the standard of proof in civil forfeiture is based on the balance of probabilities.

“That the standard of proof in a criminal indictment, charges and proceedings is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“That the burden of proof in criminal procedure is much higher than that of civil procedure.

“That the Orders of the United States District Court of Illinois delivered by Magistrate Judge John A Nordberg in Suit No. 9C4483 relating to the release of the funds held in Citi Bank N.A. and Citi Bank International which funds were the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the suit were made “with prejudice”.

“That the Orders of the District Court in the Citibank Accounts places a barrier on any further proceedings relating to the Account.

“That only the Orders relating to the funds held in Heritage Bank where the sum of $460, 000.00 was forfeited was made simpliciter and without a caveat.

“That the Orders made by the US District Court of Illinois were made to incorporate “the stipulation and Compromise Settlement of Claims to the Funds Held by Heritage Bank and Citibank” earlier filed by the parties in Court.

“That the judgment of the US District Court of Illinois put to an end to issues relating to the forfeiture and release of funds as contained in the Settlement Agreement.

READ ALSO: JUST IN: Six States Drag FG to Supreme Court Over Tinubu’s Victory

“That the cause of action for mandamus requesting the 3rd Respondent to investigate and prosecute the 6th Respondent is founded on the judgment of the District Court of Illinois which has put the matter to rest.

“That the cause of action of the Applicants is dead and legally unsustainable.

“That it is in the interest of justice to dismiss this suit with substantial cost.”