Why court should dismiss Atiku’s petition against my victory – Tinubu

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).

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that 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.

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.

NAN reports that 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.

Tinubu’s response

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.

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

“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,” he argued.

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.

‘Serial loser’

Mr Tinubu said that Atiku could not have won the poll because he was a serial election loser.

“The 1st petitioner (Abubakar) has been consistently contesting and losing successive presidential elections in Nigeria since 1993, whether at the party primary election level or at the general election,” he said.

READ ALSO: APC, INEC ask election petition court to dismiss Obi’s petition challenging Tinubu’s victory

The president-elect recalled that Atiku in 1993, lost the Social Democratic Party (SDP) primary election to the late M.K.O Abiola.

He said “in 2007, he lost the presidential election to the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.”

He said in 2011, he lost the PDP presidential primary election to President Goodluck Jonathan and in 2015, he lost the APC primary election to President Muhammadu Buhari.

Mr Tinubu said in 2019, Atiku lost the presidential election to Mr Buhari; and now in 2023, he had, again, lost the presidential election to him.

According to the president-elect, it was not a surprise or not by accident that the electorate rejected the 1st petitioner at the polls of the presidential election held on F25 February.

He said he was ready to lead evidence to prove to the court that a host of states controlled by PDP and their governors protested against Atiku’s emergence as party’s candidate and vowed never to support his candidature.

He said he would “lead evidence to show that the 1st petitioner could not even campaign or canvass for votes in some of the states controlled by the 2nd petitioner, including Rivers and Oyo states where the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) defeated the 1st petitioner (Atiku) by a wide margin”.

Mr Tinubu, who said former vice president having lost at the election, had no right to be declared as winner under the Nigerian laws, prayed the court to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit, substance and sincerity.

He described it as being “frivolous, vexatious, highly misconceived and disclosing of no reasonable cause of action.”

(NAN)