Re-run Election Is Between Me And Atiku – Tinubu

President Bola Tinubu has petitioned the Presidential Election Petition Court (PREPEC) in Abuja to bar the Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, from running in a re-run presidential election, claiming that only he and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, are constitutionally qualified for the re-run election.

Tinubu contended that if the court of appeals invalidates the presidential election on February 25, 2023, Obi and his party will be ineligible for the re-run.

In response, Obi’s lawyer urged the PREPEC’s five-member panel not to undermine the will of the people as expressed in the February 25 presidential election, emphasizing that Tinubu should be dismissed immediately.

Tinubu chastised both Obi and LP for seeking the court to annul the election and order the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to hold another election in which he, Shettima, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) would not take part.

He contended that if the remedy is granted, Obi and LP will receive no benefit because they are constitutionally precluded from contesting the re-run election.

President Tinubu’s arguments were presented in his final written address in response to Obi and the LP’s petition questioning his declaration as president.

Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, INEC chairman, proclaimed Tinubu the winner of the February 25 presidential election with 8,794,726 votes on March 1, while Atiku and Obi received 6,984,520 and 6,101,533 votes, respectively.

Both Obi and Atiku are claiming victory since they received a majority of valid ballots cast at the polls. 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 Obi and LP’s petition, which was filed by his lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), that the evidence presented by the petitioners failed to show accusations of noncompliance and corruption capable of voiding his election.

He, however, added that: “In the very 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 a plurality of votes, having scored 6,984,520, far and above 1st petitioner’s 6,101,533 votes.

“In effect, the petitioners have no locus standi to ask for relief 2, both constitutionally and legally; constitutionally, because he is barred from contesting; legally, because he has no benefit to derive from the said relief, assuming it is granted,” he said.

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 mandated 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 most number of states (19 states, compared to the 1st petitioner’s 16 states), and also by a plurality of votes, having scored 6,984,520, far and above the 1st petitioner’s 6,101,533 votes.

Citing Section 134(3) of the Constitution, Olanipekun submitted that, “the 1st 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) provides thus: “In default 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 among the remaining candidates who have a majority of votes in the highest number of states, so however that where there are more than one candidate with majority of votes in the highest number of states, the candidate among them with the highest total of votes cast at the election shall be the second candidate for the election.”

Olanipekun further criticized the petitioners’ requests for the election to be cancelled and an order directing INEC to hold a new election, claiming that the petitioners failed to specify who would participate or run in the poll.

“Most humbly, the court cannot decree an order for a fresh election, outside the provisions of the Constitution,” he said.

“In any event, 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 the election and even file a petition.

“We, again, refer to the un-contradicted evidence of the respondents’ sole witness, who observed that the name of the 1st petitioner is nowhere located in Exhibit RA18.

“Arising from the foregoing is the fact that the petition is improperly constituted, and, as such, at the end of evidence/trial, it is clear that it does not vest jurisdiction in this honourable court to entertain it, and more particularly, to grant the reliefs sought.

“The essence of all these is that in the absence of the PDP and its candidate, the NNPP and its candidate, the grounds of the petition, the paragraphs making allegations against the parties and any evidence extracted during trial become incompetent and inadmissible in the absence of those parties.”