President Bola Tinubu has warned members of the presidential election tribunal that removing him from office could lead to a collapse in Nigerian law and order.
Mr Tinubu acknowledged that he did not receive 25% of the votes cast in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, but said that this was insufficient to overturn his victory as proclaimed by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
“Any other interpretation different from this will lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy and alteration of the very intention of the legislature,” Mr Tinubu’s lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun, said in their final defence statement to the court.
The lawyers were referring to a part of the Nigerian Constitution that said that a presidential contender must receive 25% of the votes cast in two-thirds of Nigeria’s 36 states plus the Federal Capital Territory, or Abuja.
After Mr Tinubu earned the most votes in a three-way presidential campaign in February but fell short of the 25% threshold in the FCT, public speculation over the clause’s intent has been rife.
According to Mr Tinubu’s staff, courts have always been cautious about providing extreme interpretations of the Constitution that could cause anarchy.
“Our courts have always adopted the purposeful approach to the interpretation of our Constitution, as exemplified in a host of decisions,” the team said.
They further claimed Mr Tinubu would have won the election even if he did not receive any votes in Abuja and one other state, despite the fact that this was not the case of petitioners Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party and Peter Obi of the Labour Party.
“Even if there was no election in one State (including the FCT), or even if the election of a State/States (including the FCT) is/are voided, the entire election cannot be voided or canceled.
“In concluding our arguments on this issue, we urge the court to hold that any election where the electorate exercise their plebiscite, there is neither a ‘royal’ ballot nor ‘royal’ voter; and that residents of the FCT do not have any special voting right over residents of any other State of the federation, in a manner similar to the concepts of preferential shareholding in Company Law.
“We urge this court to resolve this issue against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent,” the lawyers said.
Mr Tinubu was proclaimed the winner of the presidential election held on February 25 by INEC on March 1. The electoral commission reported that Mr Tinubu received 8,794,726 votes, defeating Messrs Abubakar and Obi, who received 6,984,520 and 6,101,533 votes, respectively.
Mr Abubakar alleged widespread irregularities and election cheating in his petition, while Mr Obi alleged similar grounds but went on to challenge Mr Tinubu’s eligibility for the election on the grounds that he had previously forfeited money to the US after being charged with drug trafficking and money laundering.
Mr Tinubu’s lawyers contested the claims in court, claiming that any payment Mr Tinubu made to US officials was not a “fine” as defined by the Nigerian Constitution. In any event, they contended, the incident did not occur in Nigeria.
In the following weeks, Messrs Abubakar and Obi are due to file their individual responses to Mr Tinubu’s lawyers’ arguments, after which the tribunal — a panel of justices from the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal — will finalize arguments and deliver a judgement.
Regardless of the tribunal’s final decision, the case is widely likely to be heard by the Supreme Court, which would then have 60 days to rule.
