BREAKING: What Tinubu Told Supreme Court About Atiku’s Appeal

BREAKING: What Tinubu Told Supreme Court About Atiku’s Appeal

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has called upon the Supreme Court to reject the appeal lodged by Atiku Abubakar challenging his triumph in the February 25 election.

Tinubu asserted that there is no valid reason to contest the findings of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) as its verdict is firmly grounded in legal principles.

Read Also Married Man Caught In Neighbours Matrimonial Bed  Having S3x By Children 

On September 6, the PEPC dismissed petitions filed by Atiku, Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), and ChiChi Ojei of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM). Both Atiku and Obi have subsequently lodged appeals with the apex court.

In urging the highest court to dismiss Atiku’s appeal, Tinubu characterized his opponent’s petition as a concoction of dramatic twists and turns.

Read Also Lady Walks Nak3d On The Road Revealing Her Goods (VIDEO)

The President believes that the allegations regarding discrepancies in his credentials were fabricated by Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) after failing to produce evidence supporting their assertion that he was ineligible to contest the election.

In his response to Atiku and the PDP’s appeal, Tinubu implored the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court that upheld his election.

Read Also BREAKING: Tinubu Told To Strip Atiku Of GCON Title (DETAILS)

Tinubu maintained that he was legitimately elected, having garnered the highest number of votes. He emphasized that he received one-quarter (25 per cent) of the total votes in 29 states, surpassing the constitutional requirement.

Furthermore, Tinubu highlighted that Atiku and the PDP only achieved 25 per cent of the total votes in 21 states, falling short of the constitutional threshold of 24.7 states, which constitutes two-thirds of the 36 states of the federation and the FCT (making a total of 37).

Tinubu asserted that, having secured the highest number of valid votes cast and met all constitutional prerequisites, INEC had no alternative but to declare him the victor. He contended that Atiku and the PDP, dissatisfied with the election outcome, approached the PEPC with unfounded allegations of electoral law violations, corrupt practices, failure to secure a majority of lawful votes, and the disqualification of the respondent.

“The hyperbolic character of the forgoing allegations was exposed by the petition itself, which had no facts in support thereof.

“Starting from the allegation of non-qualification of the respondent, all that the appellants submitted to the lower court through their petition was that the second respondent (Tinubu) was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election not having the constitutional threshold.”

He added: “It was at this point that they rolled out their drums of cooked-up allegations of discrepancies in the second respondent’s (Tinubu’s) academic qualifications, dual nationality and sundry bemusing allegations from the backdoor.

“While they also claimed to have won the highest number of votes cast at the election, as against INEC’s declaration, throughout their petition they did not suggest an alternative score which they considered correct, whether for themselves or the respondent.

“Though they had alleged that the election was riddled with non-compliance and corrupt practices, the paragraphs of their petition putting up these allegations were nothing short of vague, imprecise, generic and nebulous.

“For these allegations which ought to have been specifically demonstrated through facts and figures like polling units and numbers, the appellants, through their petition, chose to regale the lower court and the respondents with breathtaking suspense by stating that the said facts will be disclosed in their statistician’s report which was not part of the petition filed.

“It is only commonsensical that the respondents will only be able to respond to the facts in the petition and not on the crucial, albeit anticipated statistician’s report, since even the devil himself knows not the heart of man.”

“With these, it was obvious that the appellants did not intend to prosecute a petition, but rather, to venture into some form of blockbuster, laced with thrilling suspense, stunning surprises and ecstatic hide-and-seek recreational activities.

“These necessitated a series of objections from the respondents challenging the competence of the petition, as well as the itemised nebulous paragraphs of same, the statement on oath of these subpoenaed witnesses, which were not front-loaded with the petition and tons of documents sought to be tendered, which were either irrelevant or unconforming to the mandatory rules of admissibility.”

The President contended that Atiku and the PDP failed to provide any grounds for the highest court to overturn the lower court’s findings, which he described as “legally sound and exemplify a high level of legal expertise.”

Tinubu also pointed out that while Atiku raised concerns about his eligibility, he simultaneously requested an alternative remedy in court—a runoff election with him.

He added: “The logical conclusion from this approbative and reprobative posture of the appellants is that deep down in their hearts, they are convinced that the second respondent won the election, but have decided to embark on this voyage of abuse of court process.”

Tinubu pointed out that despite Atiku and the PDP raising concerns about result transmission, all their witnesses at the PEPC unanimously attested that the election was conducted smoothly, with INEC adhering to all prescribed procedures.

He contended that the tribunal’s decision to uphold his election was justified and in accordance with the facts presented.

Tinubu stated: “None of the appellants have demonstrated any reason why this honourable court should disturb any of the findings of the lower court, which, with all modesty are rooted in law and perfect demonstration of scholarship.

“We accordingly urge this honourable court to affirm the decision of the lower court, while dismissing this appeal in its entirety, as same is lacking in merit and bona fide.

“Everything put together or summarised, this appeal is a further demonstration of the abusive nature to which the appellants have subjected court processes. The Supreme Court is urged to dismiss it.”

Keep Yourself Updated With More News By Joining Our WhatsApp Group With The Link Below

https://chat.whatsapp.com/JyWesgV4VjFDIc31PXjp2S