Tinubu to Tribunal: I did not score 25% in FCT but don’t remove me to avoid anarchy

 

ABUJA, Nigeria – President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has owned up at the ongoing Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, PEPT that he did not score the mandatory 25% required in the FCT to be elected president of Nigeria.

He told the tribunal in his final written address as defence of his election through his lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN, that he should not be removed on the basis of failing to secure 25% in the FCT as required by the Nigerian Constitution to avoid anarchy in the FCT.

Tinubu was responding to two petitions filed by candidates from the Labour Party (LP), Mr. Peter Obi and that of People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar challenging the validity of his victory.

“Any other interpretation different from this will lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy and alteration of the very intention of the legislature,” Tinubu’s lawyers led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN said.

The lawyers were specifically addressing a section of the Nigerian Constitution that said a presidential candidate must score 25 per cent of votes in two-thirds of Nigeria’s 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Tinubu, according to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC won the highest number of votes in a three-way presidential race in February but failed to score 25 per cent in the FCT.

“Our courts have always adopted the purposeful approach to the interpretation of our Constitution, as exemplified in a host of decisions.

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.”