The All Progressives Congress, (APC) said former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), Atiku Abubakar failed to give credible evidence, to substantiate his allegation that the February 25th presidential poll was rigged in favour of President Bola Tinubu.
For this reason, the ruling party said Atiku should not be declared the winner of the presidential election.
The ruling party, in a final and written argument filed through a team of lawyers led by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, argued that Atiku and the PDP, are not entitled to any of the declaratory reliefs they are seeking in the petition they filed to nullify the outcome of the presidential election.
It argued that the petitioners merely dumped documents they claimed to be evidence, on the court, without demonstrating or linking them to specific allegations they raised against Tinubu’s election victory.
The APC said it appeared as if Atiku and the PDP “had a mission to undo the solid and settled judicial precedent that it is not enough to merely identify documents/exhibits without making the added effort to demonstrate their relevance by correlating them with witnesses’ adopted depositions; more so, when the documents were not made by them.”
According to the party, “On the effect of the dumping, we urge your lordships to hold that all the documents have no probative value.
“The fact that the documents were tendered by learned senior counsel for the petitioners from the bar makes the case worse for them.
“The duty is not on the judge to retreat to his hallowed chambers and engage in a cloistered examination of the documents that were dumped before him in the open court,” it argued.
Besides, APC, noted that most of the exhibits that Atiku tendered before the court, “were not relevant to the petition, having not pleaded or set out any relevant fact.”
It told the court that aside from the allegation of non-qualification that Atiku and PDP raised against President Tinubu, all other allegations in their petition, ”were supposed to be set out on polling unit basis” or “proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
APC insisted that the allegation of the petitioners that the election was rigged, was not tied to any specific polling unit in the local government areas of each of the 24 states under challenge in the petition.
“They were just blanket allegations,” it stated, adding that since some of the allegations were criminal in nature, the law required that they should be proved through “cogent, credible and reliable evidence.”
Describing Atiku’s petition as “merit-barren”, the APC, while seeking its dismissal, urged the court to uphold the return of Tinubu as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“The case of the petitioners must fall like a pack of cards. It is bound to fail,” APC added.
On Tinubu’s educational qualification, the party insisted that exhibits that were adduced before the court in the course of hearing the petition established that he indeed attended Chicago State University in the United States of America and graduated with honours.
It argued that Atiku and PDP were unable to produce a disclaimer from the school, saying their allegation that Tinubu submitted forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, in aid of his qualification to contest the presidential election, “was egregious, frivolous and unfounded.”
More so, it told the court that the petitioners failed to produce the genuine certificate from which the alleged forged certificate was made.
APC maintained that Tinubu “was eminently qualified to contest and occupy the office of President of Nigeria.”
On Tinubu’s alleged forfeiture of the sum of $460, 000 in the USA following his alleged involvement in a drug-related case, the APC, said there was no evidence that he was ever charged, convicted or fined for any criminal case.
It argued that a person must have been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment or fine before such a person could be disqualified from contesting an election.
APC said there were no criminal proceedings or pronouncement of a verdict of guilty against President Tinubu to warrant his disqualification, adding that the word “fine” was not mentioned in the judgment of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, which the petitioners tendered in evidence.
On Tinubu’s alleged dual citizenship, the APC argued that his mere possession of Guinean Passport No. D00001551 was not sufficient ground to disqualify him from contesting or to sack him from office.
It drew the attention of the court to the fact that Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, who testified in the matter, confirmed that Tinubu is a Nigerian citizen by birth.
It argued that unlike those that acquired Nigerian citizenship by registration and neutralization, a Nigerian citizen by birth could have dual citizenship.
“A Nigerian-born citizen does not lose his citizenship as a Nigerian or his right to vote or vr voted for in an election in Nigeria by acquiring dual citizenship of a second country.”
Likewise, APC urged the court to dismiss Atiku’s contention that Tinubu did not secure at least one-quarter of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja, in the presidential election.
It is argued that FCT does not enjoy special status as a constituent unit or a state under Section 134(2) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
“Abuja voters have no veto power to singularly hang the outcome of the presidential election that is otherwise conclusive, simply because a candidate did not poll or secure at least one-quarter of votes cast in the FCT in a presidential election.
“We submit that there is equality before the ballot,” APC further stated, describing Atiku’s argument as “pedestrian” and “preposterous.”
Moreover, APC, which was cited as the 3rd Respondent in the petition, argued that the word “And” which was used in the Constitution with respect to the FCT, was “conjunctive and not disjunctive.”
It contended that it would have been different if drafters of the Constitution used “and in”, instead of only “and”.
The ruling party told the court that the presidential election was conducted as scheduled in 176, 846 polling units, 8, 809 Wards and 774 Local Government Areas, in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, as well as the Manual and Guidelines for the election, “resulting in the well-deserved victory of the 2nd Respondent.”
It will be recalled that the court had on July 4, concluded a hearing on Atiku’s petition after all the Respondents closed their defence.
While the petitioners called a total of 27 witnesses in support of their case, INEC and President Tinubu called lone witnesses each, though they tendered documentary evidence before the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel.
On its part, the APC said it found no reason to call any witness in the matter.
Specifically, Atiku, who came second in the presidential election, and his party, are among other things, praying the court to nullify the presidential election and withdraw the Certificate of Return that was issued to President Tinubu by INEC.
He, among other things, insisted that President Tinubu “demonstrated inconsistency as to his actual date of birth, secondary schools he attended (Government College Ibadan); his State of origin, gender, actual name; certificates evidencing Universities attended (Chicago State University).”
More so, Atiku, alleged that INEC, which failed to electronically transmit the results of the election, deployed a third-party device that diverted votes in Tinubu’s favour.
Comments are closed.