Tinubu Charges Court To Dismiss Atiku’s Petition Against Victory

0

Tinubu Charges Court To Dismiss Atiku's Petition Against Victory

The president-elect, Bola Tinubu, has urged the Presidential Election Petition Court to dismiss the case filed against his victory at the 25 February poll by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.

He described the petition by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as “a gross abuse of court processes” and that it should not be entertained by the court.

Mr Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate in the disputed poll, made this call in his preliminary objection filed against Atiku’s petition through his team of lawyers led by Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

Atiku and his party, the PDP, are the 1st and 2nd petitioners, respectively, in the case marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023.

They jointly suit the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Tinubu and the APC as the 1st to the 3rd respondents, respectively.

Read Also: Peter Obi: FG Speaks On Involvement In Detention By UK Authorities

The petitioners are seeking the nullification of the 25 February presidential poll.

Mr Tinubu, according to INEC declaration, defeated 17 other candidates after polling 8,794,726 votes.

While the former vice president came second with 6,984,520 votes, Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) came third with 6,101,533 votes.

However, Atiku and the PDP are asking the tribunal to set aside Mr Tinubu’s victory and to declare Atiku winner of the election. In the alternative, they want an order mandating INEC to conduct a fresh election, without the participation of APC and its candidate.

Four other political parties with their presidential candidates have also filed their petitions against the outcome of the election.

What Tinubu Said

Responding to Atiku’s petition, Mr Tinubu argued that the entire petition constituted an abuse of processes of court.

He said the petitioners, in another case before the Supreme Court, are also asking for same prayers as in the instant petition.

He said the originating summons dated 28 February was filed by six states controlled by the PDP (2nd petitioner) against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), INEC and others.

He said the Attorneys-General of Sokoto, Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta and Edo states are plaintiffs in the case.

Tinubu noted;

Most, if not all the issues the plaintiffs submitted for determination in the said originating summons are repeated in the present petition.

In the main, the originating summons sought the setting aside of the presidential election held on 25th February, 2023.

The plaintiffs attacked INEC for not following its Manual and Regulations in the conduct of the election, and also complained of glitches, which is also the thrust of their petition.

While the originating summons was filed on Feb. 28, this petition was filed on March 21.

Mr Tinubu, who accused the petitioners of pursuing two processes in respect of the same subject, urged the court to dismiss the petition.

He said the grounds of the petition were incompetent, hence, the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain them.

He argued that though the petitioners alleged his election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, they failed to disclose incidents of non-compliance with the law.

He said though the petitioners complained about outcome of the election in 10 states which include Abia, Anambra, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo, Kano, Plateau and Lagos, he was not declared as the overall winner in any of the states listed.

According to him Mr Peter Obi of the Labour Party was declared the overall winner of the election in Abia, Anambra, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo, Plateau and Lagos states, while Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso of the New Nigeria People’s Party was declared winner of the election in Kano State.

Mr Tinubu argued that none of these people and their parties were joined as a party on the petition.

He said he could not be made willy-nilly to defend any infraction allegedly committed in any of those states.

He, therefore, argued that the petition was improperly constituted and prayed the court to dismiss it.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.