Atiku Asks Supreme Court To Declare Him President – Independent Newspaper Nigeria

In the alternative, Atiku asked the apex court to make an order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a second elec­tion (run-off) between him and the candidate of the All Progres­sives Congress (APC), President Bola Tinubu.

The INEC had on March 1, 2023, declared Tinubu as winner of the election, a decision which did not go down well with Atiku.

The former vice president’s demand was contained in a 35-ground notice of appeal he lodged at the apex court, through his lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN).

Another alternative relief being sought by Atiku is for the Supreme Court to make an order nullifying the election to the office of the president held on February 25, 2023, and a fresh election (re-run) ordered.

Basically, Atiku by his ap­peal, wants the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, sitting as the Presidential Election Petitions Court, which was delivered on September 6, 2023, in a petition marked CA/PEPC/05/2023.

The appellant prayed the Supreme Court to declare that Tinubu (2nd respondent) was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the election and therefore the declaration and his return by the INEC (1st respondent) as the winner of the presidential election “is unlaw­ful, wrongful, unconstitutional, undue, null and void and of no effect whatsoever”.

Atiku also asked the apex court to determine that the re­turn of Tinubu by the INEC was wrongful, unlawful, undue, null and void having not satisfied the requirements of the Electoral Act 2022 and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Ni­geria, 1999 (as amended) which mandatorily requires Tinubu to score not less than one quarter (25%) of the lawful votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.

In addition, Atiku prayed the Supreme Court to determine and hold that Tinubu was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election.

Justifying his appeal at the Supreme Court, Atiku insisted that the Justice Haruna Tsam­mani led Presidential Election Petitions Court erred on the side of the law when it dismissed his petition challenging the declara­tion of President Bola Tinubu of the APC as winner of the Febru­ary 25 presidential election.

Atiku posited that the five-man panel of the PEPC occa­sioned a miscarriage of justice when they held that the inter­pretation of Section 134(2) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), as it relates to 25 per­cent votes in the Federal Capital Territory, by his counsel, Chris Uche (SAN), “is completely fallacious if not out rightly lu­dicrous”.

The former vice president argued that the issue submitted to the PEPC called for the inter­pretation of the material word “and” in the said Section 134(2) (b) of the constitution.

It was Atiku’s contention that the provisions of the sec­tion are clear and unambigu­ous, and a literal and ordinary construction will best define the intention of the framers of the constitution.

“The word ‘and’ used in Sec­tion 134(2)(b) of the constitution, 1999 is conjunctive and not dis­junctive.

“The word ‘and’ used in Sec­tion 134(2)(b) of the constitution, 1999 is not a creation of the ap­pellants and the appellants were in no way fixated on it.

“Contrary to the opinion of the court below, there is nothing ‘completely fallacious’ or ‘out­right ludicrous’ in applying the words used by the framers of the constitution”, Atiku reasoned.

Arguing further, the PDP presidential candidate stat­ed that the constitutional re­quirement of one-quarter of the votes in two-thirds of the states ‘and’ the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is additional and mandatory requirements to the provisions relating to the highest lawful votes, and there­fore a condition precedent to a declaration.

But “merely picking out the word ‘equality’ by the low­er court in the preamble to the 1999 constitution”, Atiku said, “cannot defeat the plain, clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 134(2)(b) of the con­stitution”.

The Wazirin Adamawa said the FCT cannot be construed as the 37th state of Nigeria as done by the PEPC in the light of the clear provisions of Section 2(2) and Section 3(1) of the consti­tution.

“A correct interpretation of the said Section 134(2)(b) of the constitution, 1999 would neither be ‘hollow’ or ‘futile’ as opined by the lower court.

“The lower court failed in its duty to interpret the material word ‘and’ in the said sub-sec­tion”, Atiku told the Supreme Court.

More so, the appellant (Ati­ku) argued that the lower court erred in law when it held, in relation to the applicability of Section 299 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nige­ria 1999 (as amended) to Section 134(2)(b) of the said constitution, as follows: “The point being made here is that contrary to the position of the petitioners, by the express provisions of Section 299 above, the provi­sions of the entire constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory as if it were one of the states of the federation.

“Contrary to the opinion of the lower court, the provisions of Section 299 of the constitu­tion of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) are clearly inapplicable to Section 134(2)(b) of the constitution, 1999.

“By subsection (c) of the said Section 299, its application is limited to the matters afore­said, namely legislative powers, executive powers and judicial powers; and does not apply to the procedure for the election of president covered by section 134(2)(a) in line with the princi­ple of ‘expressio unius est exclu­sio atterius.’

“The provision of Section 299 of the 1999 constitution is special and limited to the ex­ercise of legislative, executive and judicial powers in the Fed­eral Capital Territory, Abuja and has nothing to do with electoral matters.

“The provisions of Section 299 of the 1999 constitution ought not be used to reconstruct the provision of Section 134(2) (b) of the same constitution to defeat its intendment and appli­cation.

“A proper interpretation of the word ‘accordingly’ in the sec­tion clearly qualifies and limits the scope of the application of the said section to only matters specifically mentioned therein”, Atiku argued.

He submitted further that Section 299 of the 1999 constitu­tion does not and cannot apply to the entire provisions of the constitution as wrongly held by the lower court.

Among other grounds of ap­peal, Atiku said the lower court erred in law when in its interpre­tation of Section 134(2)(b) of the constitution it held as follows: “..by the express provisions of Section 299 above, the provisions of the entire constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory as if it were one of the states of the federation. This means that Section 134(2)(b) of the same constitution, requiring a presidential candidate to poll at least one quarter of the votes cast in two-thirds of the states of the federation in order to be returned elected, means noth­ing more than that the Federal Capital Territory shall be taken into account in calculating the said two-third of the states of the federation.”

But to Atiku, the provision of Section 134(2)(b) of the constitu­tion is clear on the requirement that a presidential candidate must score at least 25% of the total votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

“There is no ambiguity or absurdity in the provisions of Section 134(2)(b) of the constitu­tion to warrant a resort to any other canon of interpretation other than the literal rule, as the lower court erroneously did.

“The lower court miscon­ceived the intention of the legis­lature in their interpretation of the provisions of Section 134(2) (b) of the constitution.

“The lower court, on the re­quirement of one-quarter of the votes scored in the Federal Capi­tal Territory, Abuja, erred in law when it held as follows: “Such that if a candidate polls 25% or one-quarter of the votes in two-thirds of 37 states of the Feder­ation (FCT Abuja inclusive), the presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elect­ed, even if he fails to secure 25% of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,…”.

According to Atiku, the PEPC wrongly interpreted the phrase “as if” in the said section 299 which clearly defines a situ­ation that appears or resembles something else, but is not actual­ly that, which led to its holding the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as the 37th state of the federation.

“Section 2(2) of the consti­tution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) provided that Nigeria shall be a federation consisting of states and the Federal Capital Territo­ry, Abuja.

“Section 3(1) of the said con­stitution specifically named, mentioned and listed the 36 states of the federation, and Federal Capital Territory, Abu­ja, was not included as the 37th state”.

More so, the appellant posit­ed that the lower court, on the requirement of one-quarter of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, erred in law when it held as follows: ‘In conclusion, I hold without any equivocation that in a presiden­tial election, polling one-quarter or 25% of total votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja is not a separate precondi­tion for a candidate to be deemed as duly elected under section 134 of the constitution.”

However, Atiku said, “The pre-condition of polling one-quarter of the votes or 25% of total votes before a declara­tion and return in a presiden­tial election applies equally to (a) two thirds of the states of the federation, and to (b) the Federal Capital Territory Abuja.

“The language employed in Section 134(2)(b) of 1999 constitu­tion is clear and unambiguous.

“The duty of the lower court was to interpret the law as it is, where the words are clear and unambiguous such as in Section 134(2)(b) and Section 299 of the constitution…”.

Obi Asks Supreme Court To Nullify Tinubu’s Victory

Similarly, the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candi­date in the February 25 presi­dential election, Mr. Peter Obi, have filed a 51-ground of appeal at the Supreme Court, seeking the nullification of the declara­tion of President Bola Tinubu by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as winner of the election.

Obi’s notice of appeal was filed by his counsel, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu (SAN).

Specifically, Obi told the apex court that the judgment of the Presidential Election Petitions Court delivered on September 6, by the chairman of the five-man panel, Justice Haruna Tsamma­ni, was against the weight of evidence.

Therefore, Obi is praying the Supreme Court to allow his appeal, as well as set aside the “perverse judgment of the court below”.

Also, he asked the apex court to grant the reliefs sought in the petition, either in the main or in the alternative.

The appellant (Obi) appealed the whole decision in his peti­tion at the PEPC marked CA/ PEPC/03/2023, which he filed against INEC, Tinubu etc, ex­cept the rulings delivered in favour of him.

Among the grounds of ap­peal, Obi and LP submitted that the Justices of the court below erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion when they found and held that the petitioners in their submis­sion in opposition to the 1st respondent’s objection (INEC), appeared to have conceded that in the averments of the petition, they have not specified the par­ticular polling units where the alleged irregularities and mal­practices occurred, or specified the figures of the votes or scores which they alleged have been suppressed, deflated or inflated.

Obi argued that the court below overlooked the fact of the appellants’ pleading that certain facts and documents were cap­tured in a particular pleading by incorporation or reference did not amount to a concession that those facts were not pleaded.

“Paragraph 15 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022, which the court below re­lied upon, was inapplicable to the issue in contention.

“The court below overlooked the fact that by Paragraph 4(5Xc) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 (“the First Schedule”), a petitioner such as the appellants herein may only list documents being relied on at the hearing of the petition, without frontloading them by way of attachment.

“The appellants exercised their option of listing all those documents pleaded in the body of their petition by incorpora­tion reference; hence complied with the said paragraph 4(5)c) of the 1st Schedule to the Elec­toral Act, 2022.

“A party cannot and should not be penalised for scrupulous­ly complying with both statuto­ry and judicial laws settled in Nigeria”, Obi stated.