0815 671 6040 [email protected]

Tag: Atiku Abubakar

Atiku Abubakar

Atiku’s bid to blackmail judiciary will fail: State House statement



We have read the laughable and jejune statement by former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party Presidential Candidate in the last election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

It is obvious that having been thoroughly defeated by the All Progressives Congress and now President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the former Vice President has not fully recovered from the shock of defeat, hence the current attempt to mischievously rake up another round of inanities that offend basic logic and rational thinking.

In the ill-thought out and illogical statement, Alhaji Atiku accused the current administration of the governing APC of plotting to undermine the judiciary without providing any shred of evidence. Apart from innuendos, insinuations and outright lies contained in the said press statement, the former Vice President Atiku didn’t put forward any convincing argument to support his claims on how the President Tinubu-led administration and APC sought to undercut, undermine and compromise the judiciary.

If the former Vice President believes in democracy and the sanctity of the Judiciary, as claimed, he would not engage in making spurious and wild allegations aimed at disparaging and discrediting an important arm of government that should serve as the bulwark for our democracy.

He shamelessly resorted to this cheap attempt to intimidate and blackmail the Judiciary even when he is party to a case before the Presidential Election Petition Court.

Let it be said that when it comes to matters of fighting for democracy and democratic ideals, rule of law and independence of Judiciary in Nigeria, President Bola Tinubu stands shoulder above Atiku Abubakar. When President Tinubu was leading the charge against the emasculation of the judiciary and promoting the sanctity of rule of law as the building block for good governance as Governor of Lagos State between 1999-2007, under a PDP central government, Alhaji Atiku was nowhere to be found.

It is on record and to his eternal credit that President Tinubu, through the instrumentality of the law and Judiciary, successfully challenged many of the draconian and obnoxious decisions of the PDP-led Federal Government that trampled on the rights of the States as federating units. Lagos State under the leadership of the then Governor Tinubu won over 13 cases up to the Supreme Court against the hydra-headed PDP administration at the centre.

No leader with such a sterling and enviable credential as a champion of rule of law, independence of judiciary like President Tinubu will ever contemplate undermining the Judiciary as alleged by Alhaji Atiku.

President Tinubu won a free, fair and credible election. The February 25, 2023 Presidential election that produced him is the most transparent election ever conducted in Nigeria since 1999.

President Tinubu and the APC absolutely have no reason to undermine the judiciary in the hope of any favourable judgement.

His lawyers and that of APC have presented very solid defence of the result of the election and we are sure the judiciary will impartially deliver its ruling on the basis of points of law and evidence before it, not based on presumptuous speculations and unfounded accusations.

Atiku Abubakar should be honourable enough as a statesman to allow the Judiciary perform its sacred duty without harassment and this resort to self-help. Attempting to discredit an important institution of State for selfish political end is disingenuous, shameful and unbecoming of a former Vice President of Nigeria. This desperation must stop.

Dele Alake

Special Adviser to the President

Special Duties, Communications & Strategy

July 22, 2023

Tinubu and Atiku

Atiku, Obi have no proof that Tinubu’s election was rigged: APC lawyers


The All Progressives Congress, (APC), has said that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his allegation that the presidential election was rigged in favour of President Bola Tinubu.

The APC has also said that Mr Peter Obi and the Labour Party’s evidence against President Tinubu was minuscule and deficient in credibility.

Both Atiku and Obi and their parties dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), challenging the victory of Tinubu at the Feb. 25 presidential election.

The APC in its final brief of argument filed at the court through its team of lawyers led by Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, argued that Atiku and the PDP were not entitled to any of the reliefs they were asking for in their petition.

The APC held that the petitioners only dumped documents on the court and claimed that such documents were enough evidence to prove their allegations.

The party further argued that the petitioners failed to demonstrate or link the documents to specific allegations they raised against Tinubu’s victory.

According to the APC, it is not enough to merely identify exhibits without making the added effort to demonstrate their relevance by correlating them with witnesses adopted depositions.

“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 even worse for them.

“The duty is not on the judge to retreat to his hallowed chamber and engage in cloistered examination of the documents that were dumped before him in the open court,” the party said.

The party further argued 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 whose elections they challenged in the petition.

It said that the petitioners made blanket allegations and that some of the allegations were criminal in nature.

“The law required that they should be proved through cogent, credible and reliable evidence.”
The party insisted that most of the exhibits tendered by Atiku were not relevant to the petition since they were not pleaded or set out any relevant fact.’

“Aside from the allegation of non-qualification that the petitioners raised against the respondent, all other allegations in their petition are supposed to be set out on polling unit basis or proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

The party submitted that the case of the petitioners must fall like a pack of cards and prayed the court to dismiss the petition and uphold the election of Tinubu.

On the educational qualification of the president , the party argued that the exhibits tendered in court only established that he indeed attended Chicago State University in the United States and graduated with honours.

The party also held that the petitioners failed to produce the genuine certificate from which the alleged forged certificate was made.

On the alleged forfeiture of 460, 000 dollars 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.

The party held that there was no criminal proceedings or pronouncement of verdict of guilty against Tinubu to warrant his disqualification.

On the allegation of dual citizenship, the APC, argued that his possession of Guinean Passport was not a sufficient grounds to disqualify him from contesting or nullifying his election.

The APC held that the president was a bona fide Nigerian by birth and not by registration or neutralisation.

“A Nigerian born citizen does not lose his citizenship as a Nigerian or his right to vote or be voted for in an election in Nigeria by acquiring dual citizenship of a second country.”

Moreover, the party held that Tinubu’s sole witness had testified to Tinubu’s Nigerian citizenship.

The party held that the petitioners submission that Tinubu did not secure 25 per cent of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja, in the presidential election was pedestrian and preposterous.

“The FCT does not enjoy a 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 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.”

The court on July 4, concluded hearing in Atiku’s petition as the respondents closed their defence.
Atiku and his party who came second in the election, approached the PEPC asking the court to nullify the Tinubu’s election and withdraw the certificate of return he was issued.

Atiku and the PDP called 27 witnesses as against the 100 they had said in the pre-hearing report that they would call.

For his part, Obi called in 13 out of the 50 witnesses he has planned on calling and tendered a plethora of documents including over 18,000 blurred results sheets on which INEC based its declaration of Tinubu as winner.

Obi and his party led evidence by calling witnesses from only a few polling units, wards, local government Areas and local area councils from the disputed states and the FCT.

“Specifically, petitioners called a total of 13 witnesses only in a failed attempt to prove their allegations concerning the 119, 973 Polling Units.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), the first respondent in the petition called a lone witness just as president Tinubu also called only one witness.

The APC, however, said that it found no reason to call any witness saying there was no point whipping a dead horse


APC lawyer to Atiku at PEPC: No need to whip a dead horse

, , ,

The All Progressives Congress (APC) on Wednesday in Abuja, closed its case against the election petition of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) without calling any witness.

Counsel to the APC, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that there was no need ” whipping a dead horse” saying the evidence of President Bola Tinubu ‘s sole witness, Sen. Opeyemi Bamidele was enough to do damage to the petitioners’ case.

“Having taken a sober reflection of the entire case, we have enough evidence and we are not calling any witness.

” We do not intend to whip a dead horse, we announce the closure of the case of the 3rd respondent, (the APC),” Fagbemi said.

Fagbemi took this position after he cross examined Bamidele who was Tinubu’s star and only witness. witness.

Bamidele who is also a lawyer, told the court that the 460,000 dollars forfeiture judgment tendered in evidence by the petitioners was not strong enough to warrant the nullification of Tinubu’s election.

According to the witness, the judgment of the US court on the forfeiture of 460,000 dollars had Tinubu’s name on it but not as a criminal proceeding but as civil proceeding.

The witness insisted that it was not a criminal forfeiture but a civil one.

Bamidele, who is the Senate Majority Leader held that Tinubu was not charged, arraigned, indicted or sentenced for any criminal offence by any court in the United States.

” As far as criminal indictment is concerned, Tinubu has a clean bill of health because he was never indicted and convicted by any court in the United States.”

The witness told the court that he had known President Tinubu for over 35 years adding that in all those years, he knew the president as a bonafide Nigerian citizen by birth.

While answering questions posed by counsel to the petitioners’, Mr Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, the witness said that Tinubu did not need to score 25 per cent of votes cast in Federal Capital Territory, (FCT) to be declared winner of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

He also said that the president did not need to win the election in his home state to be declared winner.

The witness insisted that Abuja was simply the federal capital city and had no special status attached to it.

He agreed with the petitioners’ counsel that President Tinubu scored 19.4 per cent of the total votes cast in FCT.

The witness who was led in evidence by counsel to Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN, said a judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in a suit filed by Labour Party on the mode of collation of election results, held that INEC was at liberty to use any mode of collation it deemed fit.

The witness also told the court that he was licensed to practice at the New York Bar in the United States as well.

With the sole witness, Olanipekun also announced the closure of Tinubu’s defence against the petition filed by the PDP and Atiku.

The closing of the defence by Tinubu and the APC marks the end of one phase and takes the case filed by PDP and Atiku to its next phase which is the exchanging of final written addresses among parties and closing arguments.

The presiding judge of the five-member panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani gave the respondents, INEC, APC and Tinubu 10 days to file their final written addresses while the petitioners have seven days to respond and the respondents have another five days to reply on points of law.

Justice Tsammani said that the parties would be communicated on the date for the adoption of the final written addresses.

Atiku came second in the Feb. 25 presidential election, but he is urging the court to overturn Tinubu’s victory on account of electoral fraud and non-compliance with statutory provisions in the conduct of the election.

Tinubu and Atiku

Atiku, PDP fall short, close case at PEPC after calling 27 out of 100 witnesses

, ,

The Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and Atiku Abubakar, its presidential candidate in the Feb. 25 election on Friday in Abuja, closed their case at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC).

This was after calling just 27 out of the 100 witnesses they had said they would call to give evidence in support of their joint petition challenging the outcome of the presidential election.

The witnesses included expert witnesses such as forensic analysts, star witnesses and subpoenaed witnesses mostly Presiding Officer of the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC).

The petitioners’ tendered their last batch of documents through their 27th witness, Mr Mike Enahoro-Eba, a legal practitioner.

The documents which were admitted in evidence included certified true copies of academic and work records of President Bola Tinubu such as a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Certificate, a certificate from the Chicago State University and a Mobil Nigeria Oil Company Plc certificate of service.

Other documents admitted in evidence were a computer generated copy of a Guinean passport bearing the name Bola Ahmed Tinubu and notarised document of the judgment showing criminal forfeiture of $460,000 along with the certified cover note notorising it.

Enahoro-Eba was led in evidence by the petitioners lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche, SAN.

The petitioners also tendered a certificate of compliance and a witness statement on oath to prove the allegations contained in their petition challenging the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

The witness told the court that the NYSC certificate attached to the president’s documents which he submitted to INEC together with his form EC9, which is his nomination form, was issued in the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle.

He also told the court that the transcript in aid of admission into the Chicago State University made by South West College in the name of Bola Ahmed Tinubu had female as the gender of the applicant.

Counsel to all the respondents; the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, (APC), all objected to the admissibility of the documents.

Under cross examination by the lead counsel to INEC, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, the witness told the court that he was in Abuja during the election and that he voted.

He further said that the election was smooth from when he was accredited up to when he voted and left the polling unit.\

The witness also told the court that he instituted a public interest suit against Tinubu at a Magistrate’s Court challenging Tinubu’s qualification to contest the presidential election.

For his part, counsel to President Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN, confronted the witness with a letter of the Chicago State University of June 27, 2022 stating that President Tinubu not only graduated from the University but graduated with honours.

The witness, however, told the court that he knew nothing about the letter.

Olanipekun also asked the witness if he had gone through the petitioner’s pleadings before coming to give evidence and he said he didn’t bother to read it because he was not part of the legal team of the petitioners.

The senior lawyer therefore told the witness that if he had bothered to read the petition, he would have noticed that the judgment he tendered was not part of the petitioners case.

For his part, counsel to the All Progressives Congress, (APC), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, asked the witness if there was any certificate given by a police officer with regards to the judgment he tendered, the witness said there was none.

The witness also confirmed to the court that there was no finger print or signature on the judgment and that the documents were not certified.

The witness, in answering Fagbemi’s question as to whether he was an APC member, said that he was a member of the Obidient Movement of the Labour Party.

Having discharged the witness, Uche told the court that that was the end of the case of the petitioners.

“My lords, pursuant to paragraph 46 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, we most humbly apply to close the case of the petitioners.”

The respondents appealed to the court to allow them open their cases after the Eid-el-Kabir holiday.

The five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani accepted the request and adjourned the case until July 3.

The petitioners in their joint petition marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023 are praying the court to among other things, withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to the President Bola Tinubu by INEC.

The petitioners maintained that the declaration of Tinubu as winner of the presidential election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

They also contended that Tinubu’s election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices, insisting that he was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast during the election.

Atiku asked the PEPC to declare him winner of the presidential election on the grounds that he secured the second highest number of lawful votes cast during the election.

Dino Melaye and Atiku Abubakar

Melaye claims INEC figure for Tinubu wrong but fails to present the ‘real’ result

, ,

Dino Melaye, a former senator and star witness of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party claimed the final result of the presidential election was wrongly computed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

But under cross examination, he failed to present his own authentic and counter result.

Melaye, the 22nd witness of the petitioners gave evidence on Friday at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) on Friday in Abuja.

Led in evidence by the petitioner’s lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche, SAN, Melaye told the court that he was PDP’s National Collation Agent.

He also identified himself as a businessman and a politician.

The witness said that the presidential result, as announced by INEC Chairman, Prof. Yakubu Mahmood, was wrongly computed and that he refused to sign the results.

He added that he walked out of the national collation centre before the end of the process when he discovered the fraudulent activities going on at the centre.

Under cross-examination by INEC’s lawyer, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, Melaye said most PDP agents across the country did not sign the Form EC8As which were the result from the polling units.

The witness further claimed that the results brought to the national collation centre by state electoral officers were at variance with the results recorded in the state.

Melaye said that he had three major grouses with the conduct of the election one of which was the refusal of INEC to transmit the election results electronically to its portal.

He said his depositions in his statements were based on his personal experience at the national collation centre and information from the party agents across the country who reported to him as the national collation agent of the party.

He also said that some of the reports given by the agents were live feeds of what was happening at their location real time through the use of technology.

Under cross examination from counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Mr Akin Olujinmi, SAN, Melaye said that the failure of INEC to transmit results from Form EC8As to its I-ReV was an infringement of the law.

He, however, said that the result captured in Form EC8A could not be changed even where it was not transmitted electronically.

The witness further told the court that as a contributor to the drafting of the Electoral Act, the conduct of the presidential election was not done according to the law.

He said that that electronic transmission of results from the polling units unto the IReV was a very important aspect of the election process, adding that without that, the election circle could not be said to have been completed.

“Result is transmitted from polling units before you move to the ward collation centre.”

When asked to give the actual scores of Atiku in the election since he claimed the scores of Tinubu were wrongly computed, the witness said that he did not calculate them directly but that they were calculated through his statistician.

The five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani then discharged Melaye from the witness box after all the respondents had questioned him.

The petitioners also tendered two sets of documents acquired from IREV via a subpoena issued on May 26 at Friday’s proceeding.

The documents are the certified true copies of Forms EC8A series from 13 local government areas of Nasarawa.

The second set of documents are Forms EC40G and Form EC40G(2), which were summaries of polling units where elections were cancelled or disrupted.

All the respondents objected to the admissibility of the documents saying they would advance reasons for their objection at the fin address stage.

However, the documents were admitted.

The court subsequently adjourned proceedings until June 19.

Obi and Atiku

Atiku’s witness says Obi did not win Nasarawa

, ,

Peter Obi, the Labour Party (LP) candidate in the February 25 presidential poll did not win in Nasarawa State, Ibrahim Hamza, a witness to PDP and Atiku Abubakar has told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).

The witness, who acted as PDP’s State Collation Agent (SCA) during the election, claimed on Monday that Obi would not have won his state if the election was free and fair.

He claimed to have signed the result sheet under duress, confirmed that by the scores allocated to parties by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Obi won the state.

Hamza said: “I am not happy with the result. I don’t want the court to accept this result. Labour Party cannot come first in Nasarawa State. That is impossible..we have the authentic result. It is with the National Collation Agent (of the PDP).”

When asked if the said National Collation Agent was still alive, the witness said he did not know.

The witness said he signed a clean copy of the result sheet, which he claimed was later mutilated after he had signed, alleging that all the cancellations in the result sheet occurred after he had signed.

Hamza, who was testifying as the 10th petitioners’ witness (PW10), said these while being cross-examined by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), lawyer to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

He told the court that, although he did not know the percentage of votes that Atiku scored in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), he was satisfied that the PDP candidate met all the constitutional requirements and provisions to be returned as the winner of the election.

Under cross-examination by lawyer to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), Hamza said he voted during the election after being duly accredited by INEC officials.

He said election results were duly computed, but we’re not uploaded electronically as required.

The witness, who said his party had agents in all the polling units across the state, said: “It was at the point of uploading that the system failed. It happened not only in my polling units, but also in others around the state.”

Under cross-examination by lawyer to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), Hamza, who said he was not present at all the polling units during the election, told the court that he visited about 50 to 60 polling units in four wards.

Another witness, Abraham David (PW9), while being cross-examined by lawyer to INEC, Abdullahi Aliyu (SAN) said although Atiku scored 15 per cent of the votes in the FCT, he is entitled to be returned as winner, because even Tinubu who did not score 25 per cent in the FCT was declared the president.

David, who said he acted as PDP’s Collation Agent at the FCT, said his party had agents in all polling units who informed him about what happened in their areas.

The witness, under cross-examination by Olujimi, said although he claimed, in his statement, that INEC collated unlawful votes, he failed to include the figure of the votes he claimed were unlawfully collated in his statement.

David, who claimed that INEC officials did not perform their constitutional responsibilities during the election, said he could not identify the said officials by name.

PW 8 Mohammed Madaki, who said it was the law that a candidate who did not score 25 per cent in the FCT cannot be declared president, noted that since Atiku did not score 25 per cent in the FCT, he was not entitled to be declared president.

Under cross-examination by Aliyu, the witness said he did not witness all the cases of malpractices he claimed in his statement, but that his party’s agents at the polling units witnessed what transpired.

While being cross-examined by lawyer to the APC, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), Madaki said he has lived in the Abuja for about 35 years and that the FCT was the same as other states in the country.

Madaki, who claimed to have written his statement by himself, was however, unable to explain the word “conscientiously” which was used in the statement.When asked by Fagbemi to tell the court the meaning of conscientiously, Madaki said: “I can’t remember.”

Former Transportation Minister, Dr. Abiye Sekibo, who featured as PW 7 said he acted as PDP’s State Collation Agent in Rivers State during the election.

Sekibo said he voted after he was duly accredited, noting that although his state has over 6000 polling units, he visited about 20.

Under cross-examination by Mahmoud, the witness said although he claimed, in his statement, that people were prevented from voting in eight local government areas, he was not present at all the local government areas, but only got information from his party’s agents.

Sekibo said results were not uploaded as required in the polling units he visited and was also told that similar incident occurred in other polling units across the state.

When asked to identify the alleged agents of Tinubu and the APC he claimed caused the disturbance that made it impossible for people to vote, Sekibo said he did not know them by name. He said he concluded based on the way the people acted.

Under cross-examination by Fagbemi, Sekibo admitted not including in his statement the figure allocated to the PDP as its score for the election.

He said the agents of his party, who were assigned to all the polling units are still alive.

Further hearing in the petition has been fixed for 9am today.

Also yesterday, the LP and its candidate Obi tendered results from eight more states, bringing to 20 the number of states in respect of which they have tendered CTCs of results in prosecution of their petition.

Their lawyer, Benbella Anichebe (SAN) tendered from the bar, CTCs of results from 13 local government areas in Ebonyi State, 13 local government areas in Nasarawa State, 25 local government areas in Delta State, 23 local government areas in Kaduna State and 27 local government areas in Imo State.

Another petitioners’ lawyer, Mrs. Valerie Azinge (SAN) tendered results from 18 local government areas in Ondo, seven local government areas in Sokoto and 21 local government areas in Kogi State.

Mrs. Azinge said her clients plan to tender more Forms EC8A from Sokoto as they receive more from INEC.

A third lawyer from the LP/Obi legal team, Patrick Ikwueto told the court that his clients filed an application on June 2 containing questions for INEC to respond to.

Ikwueto said INEC’s responses to the interrogatories were necessary for the prosecution of their petition.

Further hearing resumes in the case at 2pm today.

Culledd from The Nation

Tinubu and Atiku

Tinubu to Atiku: You are a serial election loser, petition waste of court’s time


President-elect Bola Tinubu has described Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as a serial election loser as he dismissed the petition filed by him and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against his election victory as “a gross abuse of court processes.”

Tinubu said this through his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN),in a reply to the petition filed by Atiku and his party at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), sitting in Abuja.

In a preliminary objection marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023, the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s presidential candidate in the Feb. 25 election, prayed the court to dismiss the entire petition.

Abubakar, 1st petitioner, and PDP, 2nd petitioner, in the petition marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023, had sued INEC, Tinubu and APC as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

The petitioners are seeking the nullification of the Feb 25 presidential poll.

Tinubu, who defeated 17 other candidates who took part in the election, scored a total of 8,794,726 votes, the highest of all the candidates.

The former vice president came second with 6,984,520 votes in the poll; Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) came third with 6,101,533 votes.

However, Abubakar and the PDP are asking the tribunal to set aside Tinubu’s victory and to declare Abubakar winner of the election.

In the alternative, they want an order mandating INEC to conduct a fresh election, without the participation of APC and its candidate.

Responding, Tinubu argued that the entire petition constituted an abuse of processes of court.

He said the petitioners, in another case before the Supreme Court, are also asking for same reliefs as in the instant petition.

He said the originating summons dated Feb. 28 was filed by six states controlled by the PDP (2nd petitioner) against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and others.

He said Attorneys-General of Sokoto, Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta and Edo are plaintiffs in the case.

“Most, if not all the issues the plaintiffs submitted for determination in the said originating summons are repeated in the present petition,” he said.

“In the main, the originating summons sought the setting aside of the presidential election held on 25th February, 2023.

“The plaintiffs attacked INEC for not following its Manual and Regulations in the conduct of the election, and also complained of glitches, which is also the thrust of their petition.

“While the originating summons was filed on Feb. 28, this petition was filed on March 21,” he argued.

Tinubu, who said the petitioners are maintaining two processes in respect of the same subject, urged the court to dismiss the petition.

He said the grounds of the petition were incompetent, hence, the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain them.

He argued that though the petitioners alleged his election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act, 2022, they failed to disclose incidence of non-compliance with the law.

He said though the petitioners complained about outcome of the election in 10 states which include Abia, Anambra, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo, Kano, Plateau and Lagos, he was not declared as the overall winner in any of the states listed.

According to him Mr Peter Obi of the Labour Party was declared the overall winner of the election in Abia, Anambra, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo, Plateau and Lagos States, while Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso of the New Nigeria People’s Party was declared winner of the election in Kano State.

Tinubu argued that none of these people and their parties were joined as a party on the petition.

He said he could not be made willy-nilly to defend any infraction allegedly committed in any of those states.

He, therefore, argued that the petition was improperly constituted and prayed the court to dismiss it.

Tinubu said that Abubakar couldn’t have won the poll because he was a serial election loser.

“The 1st petitioner (Abubakar) has been consistently contesting and losing successive presidential elections in Nigeria since 1993, whether at the party primary election level or at the general election,” he said.

The president-elect recalled that Abubakar in 1993, lost the Social Democratic Party (SDP) primary election to the late Chief M.K.O Abiola.

He said “in 2007, he lost the presidential election to the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.”

He said in 2011, he lost the PDP presidential primary election to President Goodluck Jonathan and in 2015, he lost the APC primary election to President Muhammadu Buhari.

Tinubu said in 2019, Abubakar lost the presidential election to Buhari; and now in 2023, he had, again, lost the presidential election to him.

According to the president-elect, it was not a surprise or not by accident that the electorate rejected the 1st petitioner at the polls of the presidential election held on Feb. 25.

He said he was ready to lead evidence to proof to the court that a host of states controlled by PDP and their governors protested against Abubakar’s emergence as party’s candidate and vowed never to support his candidature.

He said he would “lead evidence to show that the 1st petitioner could not even campaign or canvass for votes in some of the states controlled by the 2nd petitioner, including Rivers and Oyo States where the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) defeated the 1st petitioner (Abubakar) by a wide margin.

Tinubu, who said former vice president having lost at the election had no right to be declared as winner under the Nigerian laws, prayed the court to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit, substance and sincerity.

He described it as being “frivolous, vexatious, highly misconceived and disclosing of no reasonable cause

Tinubu and Atiku

Supreme court dismisses ex-minister Nwajiuba’s suit against Tinubu, Atiku


The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a former Minister of State for Education, Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba, seeking disqualification of President-elect Bola Tinubu and Atiku Abubakar as presidential candidates of their political parties.

The apex court threw out the suit on the grounds that it was statute barred, having no life to support it and legs to stand upon.

Justice Inyang Okoro who presided over a five-member panel of Justices of the Court dismissed the appeal after the former Minister withdrew his case when informed that the case was filed outside the time prescribed by law.

Nwajiuba and a civil group, the Rights for All International, a non-governmental organisation, had asked the Supreme Court to cancel the processes that produced Tinubu and Abubakar as candidates of their political parties.

He had lost at the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal both in Abuja on the same ground that his case lacked merit that could make the court look into it.

While Tinubu was the candidate of the APC, Atiku ran on the platform of the opposition PDP.

Obi and Atiku

Obi and Atiku shopping for ‘Guguru ati epa’


By Kassim Afegbua

Na me win. No be you, na me. You come 3rd. You come 2nd. If the 1st person no dey, na the 2nd person go take him place. Abi you wan become another Uzodinma: Datti Baba-Ahmed was asked on Channels TV if he truly believed the elections were rigged; he answered in the affirmative. Also, he was asked if his 6.1million votes were rigged; and he said, no. I then fell off my seat in a gale of laughter! What a smart Alec. Mr Datti, your votes were not rigged, but other contestants votes were rigged; in the same election conducted by the same umpire, at the same time across the country. Hypocrisy will not stop amusing my sensibilities. Desperate to make their own votes clean, Datti exposed the dubiety of his mind and the impropriety of his duplicity. His pair scored 6.1m votes in the election; and following his response, his own votes were clean. Another candidate scored 8.7m votes; still following his response, those votes were rigged. How shallow, ridiculous, insensible, and laughable. Double standards and the height of hypocrisy is my take. This is the hallmark of the Obi-datti mentality; if it is not them, every other person is wrong. What a vacuous mentality!!.

The response of Datti Baba-Ahmed, Peter Obi’s second leg, typifies the desperation in their evocation. It is all about self interest, and not collective interest. The same Baba-Ahmed who couldn’t penetrate his North to garner votes, is the one complaining about being rigged out. Like the chichidodo bird, his votes are clean, as he said they were not rigged votes, but was quick to say the election was rigged. Weren’t his 6.1m votes part of the election? How did he separate the 6.1m votes from the rest to arrive at their cleanness while others are soiled with rigging? Probing further, Datti is crying out that the deserved winner of the election, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, should not be sworn-in on the 29th of May for reasons that I’ll say interrogate his mental presence. I guess he prefers an unelected system of an interregnum to replace this electoral outcome. How senseless!. So, because it doesn’t favour your expectation, all hell must be let loose. And this is the orientation of someone who was preparing to be the number 2 citizen with the possibility of becoming number 1, displaying such level of warped reasoning. Making such an incendiary statement at this volatile period of our political trajectory is utterly condemnable and suspicious.

Now, let us advance a simple logic to expose the illogical position of the losers. For the Senate elections, APC dominates. For the House of Reps elections, APC dominates. These two elections were conducted on the same day and time as the presidential election. Having dominated the outcome of these two elections, Datti’s theory of victory, would then mean that APC couldn’t have won the presidential: the APC voters, in Datti’s infamous reasoning, having voted APC for the Senate and House of Reps, decided to ignore the presidential. How can a political party that won majority votes in both Senate and House of Reps elections, not score majority votes in the presidential election, knowing full well that all three elections were held on the same day and hour. Furthermore, Datti and his leader, Peter Obi, celebrated the outcome of the Senate and Reps election, but are picking holes with the Presidential one. How logical is that? It would have made a remarkable difference if the Labour Party had gotten majority in the Senate and Reps elections, then fell short at the presidential. Then, we all would have been in doubt about the outcome. The APC led in all the three categories of the elections, and yet, you are shouting blue murder. Even in the governorship and House of Assemblies ones, the APC had majority votes. Sorry for your loss, those who lost.

Obi’s political razzmatazz is becoming a fluke, judging by the outcome of the governorship and the House of Assembly election when compared with his previous outing at the presidential election. From 6.1m votes at the presidential election, Obi’s Labour Party fell quite on its back, to less than 700,000 votes throughout the entire country. That is a clear failure; and it goes to confirm the earlier claims that, the Labour Party has no structure. In the South-East, where it put up a mind-boggling showing, recording huge figures, the following election exposed its rotten underbelly such that only one governor came out of the ashes of its structure-less architecture. Alex Otti’s win in Abia state was even actually based on his own popularity and not on the razzmatazz of Obi’s father-figure. In Enugu, efforts were made by the Labour Party to railroad the process to produce the governor. A friend of mine, a Labour Party chieftain, called me from Enugu and told me he would expose Obi if Enugu was wrongfully “allocated” to the Labour Party. The threats and intimidation according to him, were out of this world; he acknowledged that it was mortally wrong for a Party that preaches new dynamics to be involved in such untoward conduct all in a bid to deliver Enugu into its fold. So, aside from Lagos, Enugu, and Abia, other states recorded abysmal outcomes for the Labour Party; with all their votes put together across the country falling at a little below 700k.

It then means that barely three weeks after Obi’s so-called showing, of 6.1m votes, he and his party, plummeted to such an odious rejection. Obi’s 6.1million votes could only produce one governor out of the 28 governorship seats that were vied for. The correlation defeats the very popularity upon which plank Obi hinged his presidential project. Or else what happened? His Vice Presidential candidate, Datti Baba-Ahmed could not pull together any serious force in his native Kaduna state. Those who had latched unto Obi’s so-called popularity could not believe their eyes when the other results were being released. And curiously also, complaints of INEC being “unfit” to conduct “credible elections” suddenly evaporated. All the razzmatazz about Obi’s popularity was a mere fluke, what we call “Obubuyaya” in local edo parlance; sheer malapropism, to describe an unreal situation. I am sure it has dawned on Obi that he cannot sustain the concentric force that aided his push for presidency. Dropping to such an abysmal height within three weeks, is like pulling the wool off the people’s faces and forcing them out of reverie . When one reconciles all these realities and juxtaposes them with Obi’s strong claim to the presidency, they don’t add up. They are like two straight and parallel lines that can never meet.

Finally on this issue, Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar should stop behaving like bad losers, raising all manner of issues to pollute public discourse and gather cheap sentiments. A winner has emerged, and deservedly so, and his party, the APC has shown cause to be so recognised. It has the highest number of Senators, the highest number of House of Representatives and the highest number of House of Assembly members, and of course, the President and his Vice.

The Labour Party failed to show its grit and gravitas after the presidential election and only managed to secure a governorship seat. The PDP also, followed its earlier pattern for governors and lawmakers. Nothing fundamentally changed. It is time to move on. It is time to sheathe the sword of election and chart a roadmap for a new beginning.

The Tinubu presidency, more of a Pan-Nigeria presidency, will be more embracing and accommodating than Obi’s ethnic and pro-christian presidency or Atiku’s pro-North presidency. Tinubu’s presidency will be more unifying, and more engaging than the others. Given the present fragility across the land, people must bury their individual interest, and promote a sense of collectivism to deepen our national narratives. May 29 will surely be a new dawn and we must look forward to it without distraction.

Obi and Atiku are becoming more like irritants and pests, and soon enough, they would become boring actors in the political chess board. Welcome on board, President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Laughter is in the morning ensconced. Give Peter Obi some “guguru”,(pop corn) give Atiku Abubakar some Epa, (groundnut), you would have gotten a perfect combination.

Atiku Abubakar

I have not accepted presidential election result: Atiku Abubakar

The defeated Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the Feb. 25 election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, on Saturday denied accepting its outcome.

INEC returned Sen. Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election.
Atiku came second and Peter Obi of Labour Party, third.

“I have been notified of a fake press release attributed to me purportedly giving legitimacy to the presidential election of Feb. 25.

“The press release did not emanate from me or from my office and it should be treated with repudiation.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I state categorically that my lawyers still have my unflinching mandate to challenge the outcome of the election,’’ Abubakar stated in Abuja.

He added that he joined other lovers of democracy in Nigeria and friends of the country in the outright rejection of the pre-determined outcome of the election.

He stated also that he would continue to challenge the legality of the election alongside his party, the PDP.

“The decision to challenge the election is not predicated on my personal interest, but in the interest of Nigeria and its people.

“It is aimed at deepening democracy and ensuring that we do not confer legitimacy on an outcome of illegitimacy.

“My commitment to the democratic struggle in Nigeria is beyond an election season,’’ Abubakar added.


Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a man of many traditional honours across the country, from north to south, west to east. The array of titles he has garnered was only comparable to that of Chief Moshood Abiola, winner of the 1993 Presidential election.


Subscribe to our Newsletter to be updated.