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 Obi.
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 emphasised 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 disputing his declaration as president, 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, 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.
Contending that the court cannot decree an order for a fresh election, outside the provisions of the constitution, Olanipekun who cited a plethora of authorities, said: “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.’”
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.
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 has 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 also criticised the petitioners’ requests for the election to be annulled and an order directing INEC to hold a new election on the basis that they made no suggestions about the candidates or participants 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 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.”
