Any Election Rerun Should Be Between Atiku and I, Tinubu Tells Court

Any Election Rerun Should Be Between Atiku and I, Tinubu Tells Court

Any Election Rerun Should Be Between Atiku and I, Tinubu Tells Court

President Bola Tinubu has petitioned the Presidential Election Petition Court (PREPEC) in Abuja to exclude the Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, and his party from any rerun presidential election, claiming that only he and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, are constitutionally qualified to contest.

Tinubu contended that if the Supreme Court invalidates the presidential election on February 25, 2023, Obi and his party will be ineligible to run again.However, Obi urged the PREPEC's five-member panel not to violate the will of the people as expressed in the February 25 presidential election, emphasising that Tinubu should be fired immediately.

Tinubu chastised both Obi and LP for petitioning the court to annul the election and order the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to hold a second poll in which he, Shettima, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) would not take part.He claimed that if the remedy was granted, Obi and LP would receive no benefit because they were lawfully precluded from contesting the rerun election.

President Tinubu's remarks were included in his final written speech in response to Obi's and the LP's petition contesting his declaration as president.Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, Chairman of INEC, proclaimed Tinubu the victor of the February 25 presidential election with 8,794,726 votes on March 1, while Atiku and Obi reportedly received 6,984,520 and 6,101,533 votes, respectively.

While citing alleged concerns of substantial non-compliance with electoral rules, corrupt practises, and non-qualification, among other things, Obi and LP, on the one side, and Atiku and PDP, on the other, had requested the court to annul the election in their applications.Both Obi and Atiku are claiming victory on the basis that they received a majority of valid votes cast in the election.Alternatively, they asked the court to order a re-run election to determine the true winner of the race.

However, Tinubu stated in his final written response to the petition by Obi and LP, which was filed by his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), that the evidence presented by the petitioners failed to show accusations of noncompliance and corruption sufficient to invalidate his election.

"In the extremely unlikely event that the election of February 25, 2023 is voided, the only candidates constitutionally prescribed to contest any subsequent election shall be the 2nd respondent and the candidate of the PDP who came second, by scoring the next majority of votes in the highest number of states (19 states), to the 1st petitioner's 16 states, and also coming second by plurality of votes, having scored 6,984,520, far and above the 1st petitioner," he added.

"In effect, the petitioners have no locus standi to seek relief 2 both constitutionally and legally; constitutionally, because he is barred from contesting; and legally, because he has no benefit to derive from the relief, assuming it is granted," he stated.Olanipekun argued that the court cannot order a new election outside of the provisions of the constitution, citing a slew of authorities: "The law is settled that 'a party prosecuting an action would (only) have locus standi where the reliefs claimed would confer some benefits on such a party."

"According to him, the only candidates constitutionally prescribed to contest any subsequent election shall be the 2nd respondent and the candidate of the PDP who came second by scoring the next majority of votes in the highest number of states (19 states), compared to the 1st petitioner's 16 states, and also by plurality of votes, having scored 6,984,520, far and above the 1st petitioner's 6,101,533 votes."Olanipekun argued that, under Section 134(3) of the Constitution, "the first petitioner is constitutionally barred from participating in any election, in the very unlikely event that the election of February 25, 2023 is voided."

Section 134(3) states, "In the absence of a candidate duly elected in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, there shall be a second election in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, at which the only candidate shall be - (a) the candidate who scored the highest number of votes at any election held in accordance with the said subsection (2) of this section; and (b) one of the remaining candidates who has a majority of votes in the highest number of votes cast."

Similarly, Olanipekun criticised the petitioners' requests for the election to be cancelled and an order directing INEC to hold a new election on the basis that the petitioners did not specify who would participate or run in the poll."Most humbly, the court cannot order a new election outside of the provisions of the Constitution," he stated.The learned silk called the court's attention to the testimony of INEC's solitary witness, who stated that Obi's name was not on the party's registry before he became the presidential candidate (Exhibit RA18).

"In any event," he continued, "the 1st petitioner has failed to comply with the law of the land, by first making himself a member of the 2nd petitioner, before proceeding to purportedly contest election and even file a petition."We again turn to the uncontradicted testimony of the respondents' lone witness, who noted that the name of the first petitioner is nowhere to be seen in Exhibit RA18.

"As a result of the foregoing, the petition is improperly constituted, and as such, at the conclusion of evidence/trial, it is clear that it does not vest jurisdiction in this honourable court to entertain it, and, more specifically, to grant the reliefs sought."The core of all of this is that in the absence of the PDP and its candidate, the NNPP and its candidate, the petition's grounds, the paragraphs stating claims against the parties, and any evidence gathered during trial become ineffective and inadmissible."

Sack Tinubu Now, Obi Tells Court in Final Address

Meanwhile, Obi has urged the election petition court's five-member panel not to undermine the will of the people as expressed in the February 25 presidential election. Obi urged the panel to fire the president in his final written speech in support of his suit disputing Senator Bola Tinubu's declaration as the winner of the presidential election.

He reminded the panel that the powers of adjudication granted to it by the Nigerian Constitution were freely given to them by the people, therefore the need to preserve the trust placed in them by the people.In their last written address filed on their behalf by their lead counsel, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), Obi and LP argued that Tinubu and Shettima's case was "devoid of any scintilla of evidence”.

They requested the tribunal to find the petitioners' case worthy and award them their reliefs, which include nullifying Tinubu's victory and declaring them the winner, or ordering a new election.They also argued that the panel's refusal to fire Tinubu for alleged constitutional violations is dereliction of duty, and that the judges should follow in the footsteps of the Supreme Court of Kenya, which nullified President Uhuru Kenyatta's election in the interests of the people and democracy.

"In conclusion, may we respectfully commend to your lordships the words on the marble of the Supreme Court in the case of Raila Odinga and Anor V Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and Others (2017) KESC 31 (KLR) para, 399; when ex-cathedra said; '13991 what of the argument that this court should not subvert the will of the people?" This court is one of those to whom the sovereign power has been entrusted under the same constitution's article 1(3)c). 

All of its powers, including the ability to invalidate a presidential election, are given to it by the people of Kenya, not by force. To dishonestly employ that granted power and turn a blind eye to constitutional infractions would be a dereliction of duty, and we reject to accept the offer, no matter how appealing it may appear.

"Therefore, however burdensome, let the majesty of the constitution reverberate across the lengths and breadths of our hills and mountains; let it serenade our households from the trees; let it sprout from our institutions of learning; let it toll from our sanctums of prayer; and let it be a constant irritant to those who bear the responsibility of leadership," Obi and LP told the panel.