The President-elect Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu has reminded the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last presidential election that he has always lost in his bid to lead the country since 1993.
Tinubu asked Atiku not to see his loss at the last election as strange, arguing that it would have been a miracle for the PDP and its candidate to win in view of the balkanization of the party before and during the election.
He noted that “the 1st petitioner (Atiku) 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; including 1993, when he lost the Social Democratic Party (SDP) primary election to the late Chief M.K.O Abiola; 2007, when he lost the presidential election to the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua; 2011, when he lost the Peoples Democratic Party presidential primary election to President Goodluck Jonathan; 2015, when he lost the APC primary election to President Muhammadu Buhari; 2019, when he lost the presidential election to President Muhammadu Buhari; and now, 2023, when he has again, lost the presidential election to the 2nd respondent (Tinubu).
“It was/is not a surprise and/or not by accident that the electorate rejected the 1st petitioner at the polls of the presidential election held on 25th February, 2023,” Tinubu said.
He noted that Atiku was without a stable political platform and has lost the majority of his key supporters, in view of his habit of jumping from one political party to another.
Tinubu equally noted that Atiku’s emergence as PDP’s candidate fueled the crisis in the party, resulting in five of its sitting governors resolving to work against him and ensure he lost.
‘The emergence of the 1st petitioner as the presidential candidate of the 2nd petitioner led to irreconcilable hostilities within the ranks of the 2nd petitioner, causing the emergence of a group of governors, known all over the country as the G-5 Governors – Rivers, Oyo, Enugu, Abia and Benue, who opposed the 1st petitioner and vowed to mobilise their people against him.
“While the 1st petitioner contested the presidential election of 2019 with President Muhammadu Buhari under a fairly cohesive PDP with Peter Gregory Obi as his running mate and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso as one of his supporters, the same Peter Gregory Obi broke away from the PDP to join the Labour Party to contest the presidential election of 25th February, 2023, while Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso also broke away from PDP to contest the presidential election on the ticket of the New Nigeria People’s Party.
“While Peter Obi polled a total number of 6,101,533, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso polled 1,496,687.
“Before the balkanisation of the 2nd petitioner, the South-Eastern states of Enugu, Abia, Imo, Ebonyi and Anambra used to be controlled by the 2nd petitioner, but at the presidential election of 25th February,
2023, they all went the way of the LP.
“At a ress conference addressed by the 1st petitioner on or about 2nd March 2023, he admitted the negative impact of the balkanisation of the 2nd petitioner on the fortune of his election, particularly, the exit of Peter Gregory Obi from the party,” he said.
Tinubu referred to a publication in the Punch newspaper of 3rd March, 2023, where Atiku was quoted to have stated that: “It is a fact that Peter Obi took our votes from the South-East and South-South, but that wouldn’t make him the President. You need votes from everywhere.”
The President-elect said these in his response to the petition filed by Atiku and the PDP before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), in which they are praying to be declared the winner or for the court to order a rerun.
Tinubu’s response was filed on Wednesday night by his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).
He faulted the competence of the petition, describing it as not only frivolous, but an abuse of the process of court, the PDP having earlier filed a suit at the Supreme Court, through some of its governors, demanding the cancellation of the election.
He argued that the PDP and Atiku cannot maintain two cases on the same issue in different courts at the same time.
Tinubu noted that on February 28, the PDP through its governors in
Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo and Sokoto states filed a suit marked: SC/CV/354/2023 at the Supreme Court, demanding among others, that the February 25 presidential election be cancelled.
‘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 (in the suit before the Supreme Court) was filed on 28th February, 2023, this petition was filed on 21st March, 2023.
“The petitioners herein, through themselves and/or their proxies filed the originating summons at the Supreme Court, before filing this petition.
“The petitioners are maintaining two processes in respect of the same subject and/or complaint of theirs, against the conduct of
the presidential election held on 25th February 2023.
“This latter petition is abusive of the originating summons filed at the Supreme Court and is liable to be dismissed in limine,” he said.
Tinubu, who insisted that he recorded more than the constitutional required geographical spread at the election, faulted the petitioners interpretation of Section 134 of the Constitution in relation to the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
He added that “the petitioner’s interpretation of the provisions of section 134 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) is strange, disingenuous (with respect) and contrary to the clear letters and spirit of the said provisions and the entire Constitution as a whole.
“Nigeria’s democracy is not based on an Electoral College jurisprudence, particularly as it relates to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
“There is no exclusive obligation that for a valid return from a presidential election in Nigeria, a candidate
must score 25 percent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
“The voters in Abuja are not superior to voters in any other part of Nigeria such that a candidate is mandated to score 25percent in Abuja without such similar status for other states of the federation.
“The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) does not create special voting rights for voters in Abuja or allocate preferential voting rights either to them or to the FCT.
“The mathematical variables in Section 134 of the Constitution are two, to wit, one quarter of votes cast and two-thirds of all the states and the FCT, Abuja. The mathematical indices are conjunctive.
“If petitioners’ position was correct, both one quarter and two-thirds will be applied to FCT, Abuja separately. However, because petitioners know that such will result in an absurd situation, they have chosen to apply only the mathematical requirement of one quarter to Abuja to the exclusion of the 2nd mathematical element of two-thirds.
“In terms of the grammatical and syntactic construct of Section 134 of the Constitution, the provision for two-thirds is more proximate to Abuja than one quarter and petitioners’ failure to relate same to Abuja demonstrates their deliberate attempt to misrepresent the Constitution.
“The provisions of the Constitution are meant to apply to the FCT as if it were one of the states of the federation and not an entity superior to the other states of the Federation.
“The Federal Capital Territory Act further reinforces respondent’s assertion that the FCT is for all intents and purposes, to be treated as a state and not
superior to a state particularly when construing legislations.
“The variables established by the Constitution for the purpose of determining one-quarter of the total number of votes cast in two-thirds of the states of the federation and the FCT, is 37
(that is, the 36 states of the federation plus/and/conjunctively with the FCT).
“The 2nd respondent scored at least 25percent in not less than 29 states of the federation, which is far above two-thirds of the states and the FCT and is thus not inhibited by any constitutional provision from assuming office as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“Arithmetically, two-thirds of 37 is 24.6 which is below the number of states wherein the 2nd respondent scored at least one quarter of the total number of votes cast at the election.”
Tinubu also faulted the competence of the petition on the grounds that Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) were excluded despite the fact that the petitioners were contesting the results from the states won by LP and NNPP.
“The petitioners complained about outcome of the election in Abia, Anambra, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo, Kano, Plateau and Lagos states.
“The 2nd respondent (Tinubu) was not declared as the overall winner in any of the states aforementioned.
“Mr. Peter Gregory 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.
“None of Labour Party, Peter Gregory Obi, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, and New Nigeria People’s Party has been joined as a party to this petition.
“The 2nd respondent cannot be made willy-nilly to defend any infraction allegedly committed in any of the states afore-mentioned.
“The petitioners are querying the result of elections in all the states where they won the election, including but not limited to Adamawa,
Bauchi, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Gombe, Yobe, Sokoto, Osun, Kebbi and Katsina states, without making themselves co-respondents to the petition; whereas, under Section
133(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022, a party whose election is being challenged shall be made a respondent.”
As against the non-compliance claim by the petitioners, Tinubu said his election as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is valid and was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
He added that his election and return is not invalid as alleged by the petitioners, adding that his declaration and return as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is valid and
in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the Constitution.
Tinubu stated that INEC substantially complied with all the procedures highlighted in the Electoral Act, as well as its Manual and Regulations for the conduct of the election.
He added that not only did INEC conduct the election in compliance with the principles of the Electoral Act, INEC Regulations and Manuals, it also lived up to its statutorily supported representations, undertakings and assurances.
“As such, the 1st respondent rightly declared the 2nd respondent as the winner of the Presidential election of 25th February, 2023, having won a majority of lawful votes cast at the election and meeting all constitutional requirements to be returned as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” he said.
In faulting the petitioners’claim of election process manipulation, he argued that since the had agents in all the polling units nationwide, “they had all opportunities to raise any complaint, but they could not raise any such complaint because there was none.
“They only began to fabricate and manufacture complaints when it became obvious that they had woefully lost the election.
“Blaming the inability to immediately transmit the result electronically is totally an afterthought and devoid of any substance at all.”
In urging the court to reject the reliefs being sought in the petition by Atiku and his party, Tinubu said he was elected by majority of lawful votes at the presidential election of 25th February, 2023 and that his election is lawful, legitimate, legal, constitutional, due, and evinces the wishes of the Nigerian electorate,
as demonstrated through the ballot box.
He added that his return by INEC was lawful, legitimate, unhampered by any impediment and that he has satisfied the requirements of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the Constitution.
Tinubu stated that he was qualified to contest the election and that he was far more qualified to contest the said election than the 1st petitioner (Atiku).
“The 1st petitioner did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at the election, and did not also meet the constitutional threshold under and by virtue of Section 134(2) of the Constitution, as he could only
muster 25percent of the votes in 21 states.
“The order seeking a runoff election is misplaced and misguided, as the 2nd respondent has satisfied all the requirements of the law and the Constitution, and has been rightfully returned as the winner of the
presidential election of 25th February, 2023, by the 1st respondent.
“Shorn of all hype, hyperbole, grandstanding and frivolities, the petition has no substance in fact, logic and law, as well as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
“It deserves to be summarily dismissed, as same constitutes a crass abuse of the judicial process,” he said.
