October 12, (THEWILL) – President Bola Tinubu has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal filed by Atiku Abubakar, candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the February 25 presidential election, against the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
The PEPC had, in a unanimous judgment delivered on September 6, upheld the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the presidential poll. The five-member panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, dismissed the three petitions challenging the victory of President Tinubu in the 2023 general elections.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, Atiku had in his 35 grounds of appeal filed on September 18, prayed the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the tribunal.
The former Vice President had also filed fresh and additional evidence to prove that Tinubu was not qualified to have contested the February 25 presidential poll on grounds that he allegedly forged his Chicago State University (CSU) certificate he submitted to INEC.
Relying on Section 137 of the Constitution, Atiku prayed the apex court to sack Tinubu for lying on oath regarding his academic qualifications.
However, in response to the appeal marked SC/CV/935/2023, with petition number: CA/PEPC/05/2023, Tinubu, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), argued that from the “clear position of the law”, Atiku and his party, in their joint appeal, had not “demonstrated any reason why this Honourable Court should disturb any of the findings of the lower court, which, with all modesty, are rooted in law and perfect demonstration of scholarship.”
Tinubu told the Supreme Court that the claim by Atiku that his academic records were forged and riddled with discrepancies was merely a fabricated story.
Tinubu said Atiku and his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) resorted to cooking up allegations against him when they failed to prove that he (Tinubu) was not qualified to have contested the February 25 presidential election.
He, therefore, urged that the court dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PDP), which upheld his election.
While maintaining that he was the clear winner of the disputed polls with the highest number of votes, the President stated that he was validly returned as the winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The President said by the statistics of the 2023 polls, he polled one-quarter/25% of the total votes in 29 states of the federation, while Atiku and the PDP only managed to secure 25 percent of the total votes in 21 states of the federation, “as against the constitutional requirement of 24.7 states, which is the mathematical results of two-thirds of the 36 states of the federation and the FCT (making 37).”
Tinubu stated that having secured the highest number of valid votes cast and having fulfilled all constitutional requirements in that regard, INEC had no option but to declare him as the winner of the presidential contest.
He submitted that Atiku and the PDP, being dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, on March 21, approached the PEPC “on trumped up allegations of non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, corrupt practices, non-scoring of the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and non-qualification of the respondent.
“We accordingly urge this Honourable Court to affirm the decision of the lower court, while dismissing this appeal in its entirety, as same is lacking in merit and bona fide.
“We cannot draw the curtain on this brief, without drawing the Supreme Court’s attention to another hypocritical relief being claimed by the appellants in their petition, and more particularly, that in their supplication before the Supreme Court, they are asking that their reliefs be granted.
“The alternative relief (e) put forth by the appellants at the lower court reads thus: “An Order directing the 1″ Respondent to conduct a second election (run-off) between the 1″ Petitioner and the 2″ Respondent.” Undoubtedly, this relief has exposed the pretentious attitude of the appellants, both in prosecuting their case at the lower court and before this Honourable Court. Here are the same set of appellants alleging non-qualification of the respondent, via the backdoor, that is, through their reply, on the one hand, and on the other hand, praying this Honourable Court to nullify the presidential election of February 25, 2023, and direct a second election between the 1st petitioner and the respondent.
“The logical conclusion from this approbative and reprobative posture of the appellants is that deep down in their hearts, they are convinced that the respondent won the election, but have decided to embark on this voyage of abuse of court processes.
“Lastly, may we draw the attention of the Supreme Court to the fact that at the lower court, this set of appellants did not ask for any relief that could inure to the benefit of the appellants in their final written address, as all issues formulated by them and prayers also sought by them before the lower court were targeted at the respondent, without any one of those reliefs designed for their benefit. May we quickly refer the court to the 4 issues formulated for determination in their final written address on page 6974 (vol. 9) of the record, and the concluding part of the address in paragraphs 6.01 (a), (b), (c) and (d) on pages 7004-7005 (vol. 9) of the record.
“Everything put together or summarised, this appeal is a further demonstration of the abusive nature to which the appellants have subjected court processes. The Supreme Court is urged to dismiss it.”
