Presidential Poll: Affirm INEC’s claim that I won in 21 states, Atiku tells court

A former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has asked the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, to declare that he won the presidential election held on February 25, in 21 states.

Atiku, in a final written address he filed through his team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, said his claim was based on a reply the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) filed in response to the petition he filed to nullify President Bola Tinubu’s election.

He contended that the electoral body, in its own final brief of argument, neither disputed, retracted, debunked nor claimed that the averment it made in its reply, was in error.

Atiku told the court that INEC had in its reply to his petition, confirmed him as the winner of the presidential contest in Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara state.

The former Vice President argued that since the electoral body, in its process, asserted that he won the election in 21 states and since it did not rebut the assertion throughout the proceedings, the court should proceed to uphold the declaration.

Atiku’s final written address, read in part: “Very importantly, the 1st Respondent (INEC) who conducted the election, made an open admission in paragraph 18 of its Reply to the petition, where it unequivocally stated thus:

“The 1st Respondent further avers that in compliance with extant laws and regulations, it diligently discharged its duties when it collated the 1st Petitioner’s scores at the election which aggregates to 6,984,520 winning only 21 States to wit: Adamawa, Akwa Ibom. Bauchi. Bavelsa. Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina. Kebbi. Kogi. Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.”

“Indeed, as admitted by the 1st Respondent (INEC), the 1st Petitioner (Atiku) won in these 21 States.

“It is important to note that throughout the trial, the ist Respondent (INEC) neither refuted nor countermanded this critical averment nor denied it.

“We urge your Lordship to hold that this constitutes an admission that requires no further proof. It also constitutes an admission against interest.

“The 1st Petitioner contested election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the platform of the 2nd Petitioner, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which held on 25th February 2023, along with 17 other candidates, including the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu), who was the candidate of the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), in whose favour the electoral body, the ‘Independent’ National Electoral Commission (INEC) manipulated the technologies earlier put in place to ensure transparency, and wrongfully returned the said 2nd Respondent as winner at about 4.00am on is March 2023, at a time the 1st Respondent admitted that substantial percentage of the results had not to be transmitted to the collation system for verification as required by law.

“Under the cover of the so-called ‘technical glitch’ excuse which the Respondent never explained, the results were deliberately manipulated through suppression and discounting of the votes of the 1st Petitioner and inflation of the votes of the 2nd Respondent.

“This deliberate bypass of the use of the prescribed verification technology was nationwide and substantially affected the outcome of the election.

“The said 1st Respondent equally proceeded to declare the 2nd Respondent winner when the 2nd Respondent did not meet the mandatory constitutional requirement to secure not less than a quarter of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

“This was in addition to the numerous infractions and corrupt practices perpetrated by the Respondents.

“Notwithstanding, the 1st Respondent unequivocally and clearly admitted in its pleadings, namely paragraph 18 at page 13 of its Reply to the Petition, which was never refuted or nor retracted, that the Petitioners won 21 States of the federation in the presidential election, which is an admission against interest.

“As a result of non-use of collation by electronic transmission, the 1st Respondent later altered the admitted result of 21 States for the 1st Petitioner to 12 States,” Atiku added.

It will be recalled that Atiku, who came second in the presidential contest, closed his case before the court, after he called a total of 27 witnesses and tendered documentary Exhibits.

He is among other things, praying the court to withdraw the Certificate of Return that was issued to President Tinubu by INEC.

Atiku and his party contended that President Tinubu “demonstrated inconsistency as to his actual date of birth, secondary schools he attended (Government College Ibadan); his State of origin, gender, actual name; certificates evidencing Universities attended (Chicago State University).”

According to the petitioners, “The 2nd Respondent did not disclose to the 1st Respondent (INEC) his voluntary acquisition of the citizenship of the Republic of Guinea with Guinean Passport No. D00001551, in addition to his Nigerian citizenship. The 2nd Respondent is hereby given notice to produce the original copies of his said two passports,” they added.

The petitioners equally challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election, alleging that he was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460,000.00 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for an offence involving dishonesty and drug trafficking.

All the Respondents had in their replies, urged the court to dismiss the petition which they maintained was bereft of merit.