The All Progressives Congress (APC) says Abubakar Atiku and PDP failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his allegation that the February 25 presidential election was rigged in favour of President Bola Tinubu. The ruling also stated that Peter Obi and the Labour Party’s evidence against Mr Tinubu was minuscule and deficient in credibility.

Messrs Abubakar and Obi and their parties are challenging the victory of Mr Tinubu at the presidential election petition court.

In its final brief of argument filed at the court through its team of lawyers led by Lateef Fagbemi, the APC argued that Mr Abubakar and the PDP were not entitled to any of the reliefs they prayed for in their petition.

The APC held that the petitioners only dumped documents on the court and claimed that such documents were enough evidence to prove their allegations.

The party further argued that the petitioners failed to demonstrate or link the documents to specific allegations they raised against Tinubu’s victory.

According to the APC, it is not enough to merely identify exhibits without trying to demonstrate their relevance by correlating them with witnesses adopted depositions.

“Aside from the allegation of non-qualification that the petitioners raised against the respondent, all other allegations in their petition are supposed to be set out on polling unit basis or proved beyond reasonable doubt,” the ruling party stated.

On the educational qualification of the president, the party argued that the exhibits tendered in court only established that he indeed attended Chicago State University in the United States and graduated with honours.

The party also held that the petitioners failed to produce the genuine certificate from which the alleged forged certificate was made. On the forfeiture of $460,000 over a drug dealing and money laundering case, the APC said there was no evidence that Mr Tinubu was criminally charged, convicted or fined.

Peoples Gazette reported that Mr Tinubu’s criminal and immigration records in possession of the United States would not be released until 2026. 

The party held that there were no criminal proceedings or pronouncement of verdict of guilt against Tinubu to warrant his disqualification. On the allegation of dual citizenship, the APC argued that Mr Tinubu possessing a Guinean passport was insufficient grounds to disqualify him from contesting or nullifying his election. The APC held that the president was a bona fide Nigerian by birth, not by registration or naturalisation.

“A Nigerian-born citizen does not lose his citizenship as a Nigerian or his right to vote or be voted for in an election in Nigeria by acquiring dual citizenship of a second country,” it stressed.

Moreover, the party held that Mr Tinubu’s sole witness had testified to the president’s Nigerian citizenship.

On July 4, the court concluded a hearing in Mr Abubakar’s petition as the respondents closed their defence.

Mr Abubakar, who came second in the election, and PDP approached the PEPC asking the court to nullify Mr Tinubu’s election and withdraw the certificate of return INEC issued to him.

Mr Abubakar and the PDP called 27 witnesses instead of the 100 they announced in a pre-hearing report.

For his part, Mr Obi called 13 out of the 50 witnesses and tendered a plethora of documents, including over 18,000 blurred results sheets on which INEC based its declaration of Mr Tinubu’s electoral victory.

INEC, the first respondent in the petition, called one witness, just as Mr Tinubu called only one witness.

The APC, however, said that it found no reason to call any witness saying there was no point whipping a dead horse.

(NAN)