Nigerian President Bola Tinubu has engaged justices of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PREPEC) in Abuja to exclude the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, in case of any rerun presidential election, asserting that main he and the candidate of the People Democratic Progressive Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, are constitutionally able to recontest.
Obi's guidance, checking, encouraged the five-part board of the PREPEC not to undermine the desire of individuals as communicated in the February 25 presidential election, focusing on that they ought to sack Tinubu right away.
Tinubu blamed both Obi and LP for requesting that the court drop the election and propel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to gather information in which he (Tinubu), Shettima, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) wouldn't partake.
He contended that should the alleviation be conceded, Obi and LP wouldn't determine any advantage, as they have been constitutionally barred from contesting the rerun election.
President Tinubu's contentions were contained in his last composed address in light of the petition of Obi and the LP challenging his statement as president.
Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, the INEC chairman had on March 1, pronounced Tinubu the winner of the February 25 presidential election with 8,794,726 votes while Atiku and Obi purportedly scored 6,984,520 votes and 6,101,533 votes, respectively.
Both Obi and Atiku are making a case for victory on the grounds that every one of them scored a larger part of legal votes cast at the poll. On the other hand, they encouraged the court to arrange a re-run election to choose the authentic winner of the poll.
In any case, that's what tinubu said:
“In the very unlikely event that the election of February 25, 2023, is voided, the only candidates constitutionally prescribed to contest any subsequent election shall be the 2nd respondent and the candidate of the PDP who came second, by scoring the next majority of votes in the highest number of states (19 states)
to the 1st petitioner’s 16 states, and also coming second by a plurality of votes, having scored 6,984,520, far and above 1st petitioner’s 6,101,533 votes.
“In effect, the petitioners have no locus standi to ask for relief 2, both constitutionally and legally; constitutionally, because he is barred from contesting; legally, because he has no benefit to derive from the said relief, assuming it is granted”.
Contending that the court cannot decree an order for a fresh election, outside the provisions of the constitution, Olanipekun who cited a plethora of authorities, said:
“The law is settled that ‘a party prosecuting an action would (only) have locus standi where the reliefs claimed would confer some benefits on such a party.’”
According to him, the only candidates constitutionally prescribed to contest any subsequent election shall be the 2nd respondent and the candidate of the PDP who came second, by scoring the next majority of votes in the highest number of states (19 states), to the 1st petitioner’s 16 states, and also coming second by plurality of votes, having scored 6,984,520, far and above 1st petitioner’s 6,101,533 votes.
Citing Section 134(3) of the Constitution, Olanipekun submitted that, “the 1st petitioner is constitutionally barred from participating in any election, in the very unlikely event that the election of February 25, 2023, is voided”.
Section 134(3) provides thus:
“In default of a candidate duly elected in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, there shall be a second election in accordance with subsection (4) of this section at which the only candidate shall be – (a) The candidate who scored the highest number of votes at any election held in accordance with the said subsection (2) of this section; and (b) One among the remaining candidates who has a majority of votes in the highest number of states, so however that where there are more than one candidate with majority of votes in the highest number of states, the candidate among them with the highest total of votes cast at the election shall be the second candidate for the election.”
Olanipekun also faulted the petitioners’ prayers for the cancellation of the election and an order mandating INEC to conduct a fresh election, on the grounds that the petitioners did not suggest who the participants or candidates at the said election would be.
“Most humbly, the court cannot decree an order for a fresh election, outside the provisions of the Constitution,” he said.
“In any event, the 1st petitioner has failed to comply with the law of the land, by first making himself a member of the 2nd petitioner, before proceeding to purportedly contest election and even file a petition.
“We, again, refer to the un-contradicted evidence of the respondents’ sole witness, who observed that the name of the 1st petitioner is nowhere located in Exhibit RA18.
“Arising from the foregoing, is the fact that the petition is improperly constituted, and, as such, at the end of evidence/trial, it is clear that it does not vest jurisdiction in this honourable court to entertain it, and more particularly, to grant the reliefs sought.
“The essence of all these is that in the absence of the PDP and its candidate, the NNPP and its candidate, the grounds of the petition, the paragraphs making allegations against the parties and any evidence extracted during trial become incompetent and inadmissible in the absence of those parties.”
){kind=link}