Since only he and the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, are constitutionally qualified to run again, President Bola Tinubu has appealed to the justices of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PREPEC) in Abuja to exclude the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Continue Reading
Tinubu contended that Obi and his party would not be eligible to run again if the justices declared the presidential election of February 25, 2023 invalid.
In response, Obi's attorney pleaded with the PREPEC's five members not to ignore the people's stated will in the February 25 presidential election and emphasized the need to immediately fire Tinubu.
For requesting the court to declare the election invalid and for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to hold a new election in which he (Tinubu), Shettima, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) would not take part, Tinubu criticized both Obi and LP.
He stated that if the relief were granted, Obi and LP would not profit because they are legally ineligible to run in the rerun election.
In response to the petition from Obi and the LP contesting his appointment as governor, President Tinubu's reasons were included in his final written address.
With 8,794,726 votes, Tinubu was proclaimed the victor of the presidential election held on February 25 by INEC chairman Prof. Mahmood Yakubu on March 1. Atiku and Obi, according to reports, received 6,984,520 and 6,101,533 votes, respectively.
Because each of them received a majority of valid votes cast in the election, Obi and Atiku both assert victory. They also petitioned the court to order a second election to determine the true poll winner.
However, Tinubu claimed that the petitioners' evidence did not support their allegations of non-compliance and corruption sufficient to invalidate his election in his final written response to the petition by Obi and LP, which was presented by his attorney, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).
He nevertheless emphasized that:
In the extremely unlikely scenario that the election of February 25, 2023, is declared invalid, the only candidates constitutionally required to run in any subsequent election shall be the second respondent and the candidate of the PDP who came in second place by receiving the next majority of votes in the most states (19 states) relative to the first petitioner's 16 states and also by a plurality of votes, having received 6,984,520 votes, far and above the first petitioner's 6,101,533 votes.
He stated, "In effect, the petitioners have no locus standi to ask for relief 2, both constitutionally and legally; legally because he has no benefit to derive from the said relief, assuming it is granted; and constitutionally because he is barred from contesting."
Olanipekun, citing numerous authorities, argued that the court cannot order a new election outside of what the constitution allows. He claimed that it is established law that "a party prosecuting an action would (only) have locus standi where the reliefs claimed would confer some benefits on such a party."
He asserts that the only candidates constitutionally allowed to run in any subsequent election are the second respondent and the PDP candidate who finished second by receiving the next-highest plurality of votes in the most states (19 states)—as opposed to the first petitioner's 16 states—and by plurality of votes, receiving 6,984,520 votes—a far greater number than the first petitioner's 6,101,533 votes.
Olanipekun argued that "the first petitioner is constitutionally barred from participating in any election, in the extremely unlikely event that the election of February 25, 2023, is void," citing Section 134(3) of the Constitution.
According to Section 134(3), "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 has a majority of votes in the highest number of votes received by the remaining candidates.
However, in cases when more than one candidate receives a majority of the votes in the most states, the candidate with the largest number of votes cast in the election will be the second candidate.
Olanipekun also criticized the petitioners' requests for the election to be annulled and an order for INEC to hold a new election on the basis that they made no suggestions regarding the candidates or participants in the poll.
Most respectfully, the court cannot order a new election outside of what the Constitution allows, he said
In any case, the first petitioner violated the law of the land by joining the second petitioner before proceeding to ostensibly protest the election or even submit a petition.We again cite the undisputed testimony of the respondents' lone witness, who said that Exhibit RA18 does not contain the name of the first petitioner anywhere.
The petition is wrongly structured, and as a result, it is obvious at the conclusion of the evidence or trial that this honorable court lacks jurisdiction to accept it and, more specifically, to award the requested reliefs.The fundamental idea behind all of them is that without the PDP and its candidate.
"The essence of all these is that in the absence of the PDP and its candidate and 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."