Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) presidential candidate, claims that he has been able to compete for the presidency of Nigeria since 1993 without encountering any problem since, in contrast to Bola Tinubu, the president-elect, he has never been involved in a drug or identity scandal.
The former vice president responded to Tinubu’s statement that Atiku has lost elections repeatedly by saying that Tinubu is a giant when it comes to forfeiture, drug-related offenses, and failing to disclose dual nationality to INEC.
These were included in Atiku’s answer to Tinubu’s and the APC’s response to his petition contesting the conduct and results of the February 25 presidential election.
In addition, Atiku claimed that, unlike Tinubu, his identity, including his age, state of origin, and educational background, has never been questioned.
Atiku argued that Tinubu is constitutionally unable to run for president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in his answer to Tinubu’s response to his petition.
Given that Tinubu was charged for drug-related crimes in the USA and forced to forfeit $460,000 as part of a compromise arrangement, Atiku claimed Tinubu is unsuitable to rule Nigeria.
The PDP presidential candidate explained why Tinubu’s declaration as the next president cannot stand in the response submitted by his lead attorney, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), and added that it is against the law for Tinubu to hold dual citizenship of Nigeria and Guinea because he voluntarily acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Guinea.
Additionally, he charged Tinubu with breaking the law by failing to disclose information about his constitutional credentials in his Form EC9 submission to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Atiku argued that Tinubu and the APC never received a majority of the valid votes cast in the presidential election on February 25 in support of his motion to have the declaration of Tinubu as the winner.
The PDP presidential candidate claimed, among other things, that Tinubu fell short of some constitutional requirements since he was unable to win 25% of the votes cast in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), as required by the constitution.
He argued that Tinubu did not match the constitutional conditions for qualification, hence declaring Tinubu the victor of the 2023 presidential election was unfair, illegal, and illegitimate.
Atiku claimed that Tinubu purposefully chose not to respond to substantive points in the petition and instead opted for inconsistent and hazy facts rather than addressing the accusations made against him and the disputed election.
The former vice president responded to a different criticism of Atiku’s petition by asserting that it did not in any way amount to a gross abuse of any legal procedure and that the original summons from February 28, 2023, filed at the Supreme Court by the states of Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, and Sokoto, have since been discontinued.
Adding that the parties in the case brought by the six PDP-controlled states are not the same, he asks the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to disregard Tinubu’s objections and averments made in opposition to his petition and grant him all the reliefs he is requesting.
