Tinubu claims that Atiku fabricated accusations against him at the Supreme Court.

admin October 13, 2023
Updated 2023/10/13 at 6:33 AM

President Bola Tinubu has petitioned the Supreme Court to reject an appeal made by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate for the 2023 election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, in an effort to invalidate Tinubu’s election.

Tinubu, supported by a team of 17 lawyers, including 10 Senior Advocates of Nigeria, has urged the court to uphold the decision made by the Court of Appeal, which dismissed Atiku’s joint petition against him.

Tinubu maintains that he was duly elected by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the February 25 presidential election, citing his success in securing 25% of the total votes in 29 states of the country.

In his testimony, he stated that the former Vice President and the PDP were only able to obtain 25% of the total votes in 21 states, which falls short of the constitutional requirement of 24.7 states, equivalent to two-thirds of the 36 states and the FCT.

Tinubu argued that since he garnered the highest number of valid votes and fulfilled all constitutional obligations, INEC had no choice but to declare him the winner of the presidential election.

He further informed the court that Atiku and the PDP, who were dissatisfied with the election outcome, approached the PEPC on March 21 alleging non-compliance with the Electoral Act, corrupt practices, not winning the majority of lawful votes, and the respondent’s disqualification.

President Tinubu stated that the exaggerated claims made in the petition were shown to be baseless as it lacked any supporting evidence.

In regards to the allegation of his non-qualification, the Appellants merely stated in their petition that Tinubu did not meet the constitutional requirement to contest the election without providing any further explanation.

Tinubu informed the Supreme Court that Atiku and his party did not clarify what they meant by “constitutional threshold” until all the other parties involved in the case had filed their replies to the petition.

“At this juncture, they presented their fabricated accusations regarding discrepancies in the 2nd Respondent’s educational qualifications, dual nationality, and various bewildering allegations that “At seemed to this be stage, conjured they out presented of fabricated thin accusations air.

“While regarding they discrepancies also in asserted the that 2nd they Respondent’s had educational garnered qualifications, the dual highest citizenship, number and of other votes confusing in allegations the made election, without contrary solid to evidence.

“They INEC’s asserted announcement, having they received failed the to majority provide of an votes alternative in score the that election, they contradicting deemed INEC’s accurate, official whether declaration, for but themselves failed or to the provide Respondent.

“Although an they alternative claimed vote that count the that election they was believed rife to with be non-compliance accurate and for corrupt either practices, themselves the or paragraphs the in Respondent.

“Despite their claiming petition widespread that non-compliance supported and these corrupt allegations practices were in lacking the in election, specificity, the precision, paragraphs and detailing were these vague allegations in in nature.” their petition were lacking in specificity, precision, and clarity.”

Recent News

Share this Article
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *