Any re-run election should be between Atiku and I -Tinubu tells Court

President Bola Tinubu has requested that the justices of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PREPEC) in Abuja exclude Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), from any potential rerun presidential election. Tinubu claims that only he and the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, are constitutionally eligible to participate in a recontest. Tinubu argues that if the justices void the February 25, 2023, presidential election, Obi and the LP would not be qualified to run again. Obi's counsel, on the other hand, urges the five-member panel of the PREPEC not to undermine the will of the people as expressed in the February 25 presidential election.

They stress that Tinubu should be removed from office without delay. Tinubu criticizes both Obi and the LP for seeking to cancel the election and compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a fresh poll in which Tinubu, Shettima, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) would not participate. He argues that if the relief is granted, Obi and the LP would not benefit as they are constitutionally prohibited from contesting the rerun election.

President Tinubu's arguments were expressed in his final written address in response to Obi and the LP's petition challenging his declaration as president. Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, the INEC chairman, declared Tinubu the winner of the February 25 presidential election with 8,794,726 votes while Atiku and Obi reportedly received 6,984,520 votes and 6,101,533 votes, respectively. Both Obi and Atiku claim victory, as each of them received the majority of lawful votes cast. Alternatively, they ask the court to order a rerun election to determine the true winner of the poll.

However, Tinubu states that, "In the highly unlikely scenario that the February 25, 2023, election is voided, the only candidates constitutionally authorized to participate in any subsequent election will be the second respondent and the PDP candidate, who obtained the next highest number of votes in the greatest number of states (19 states)."

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.”

Similarly, 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.

The learned silk drew the attention of the court to the testimony of INEC’s sole witness, who observed that Obi’s name was nowhere in the party’s register (Exhibit RA18) before he became the presidential candidate.

He added: “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.