Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party’s nominee for president, claims that since he started running for office in 1993, he has done so without encountering any problem, in contrast to Bola Tinubu, the APC nominee, who is dealing with alleged drug and identity crises.
This was said by Atiku in response to Tinubu and the APC’s preliminary opposition to Atiku’s petition disputing Tinubu’s declaration as the victor of the February 25 presidential election.
According to the Independent National Electoral Commission, Tinubu received 8,794,726 votes in total to win the election.
Atiku was ranked second by the commission with 6,984,520 votes, and Peter Obi of the Labour Party was ranked second with 6,101,533 votes.
However, Atiku, Obi, and a few other parties disapproved with the INEC’s results and petitioned the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal in Abuja to annul the election.
The former vice president of Nigeria was labeled a “serial loser” by Tinubu in reaction to Atiku’s plea, adding that he had been attempting unsuccessfully to win the presidency since 1993.
However, Atiku claimed there was no foundation for comparison and that he towers over Tinubu in his response to Tinubu that was submitted to the tribunal.
“The comparison of the second respondent (Tinubu) with the first petitioner ( Atiku) who had attained the eminent position of Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for eight years is unfounded,” Atiku said.
Contrary to him, the former vice president claimed, Tinubu is beset by numerous “controversies such as age, state of origin, identity, educational qualifications represented by certificates obtained from universities and colleges, forfeiture in drug-related offences, and failure to disclose dual nationality to the 1st respondent (INEC), among others.”
Instead of addressing the concerns Atiku stated in his petition, Tinubu, according to Atiku, continued to focus on “extraneous facts, contradictory, evasive, speculative and vague assertions.
Through his primary attorney, Chris Uche (SAN), Atiku, among others, claimed that Tinubu was unqualified to lead Nigeria because he reportedly forfeited $460,000 to the US government in a drug-related court case.
The vice president also stated: “Tinubu holds dual citizenship of Nigeria and Guinea, having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Guinea.”
He said that Tinubu should not have been declared the election’s victor since he did not receive 25% of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory.
Bala Ibrahim, the director of publicity for the APC, criticized Atiku for bringing up the drug accusation while defending the President-elect, saying, “I am delighted that he confessed that he is a continuous loser. Why run for office if you are aware that you will be a proud loser, even from your current position? What is the purpose?
In the meantime, the Labour Party candidate, Obi, accused INEC of bias in his own statement, calling the electoral umpire’s determination that Tinubu won the poll and that the petitions contesting the declaration should be dismissed embarrassing.
The fact that INEC, which ought to be impartial, filed a preliminary objection to the petitions contesting Tinubu’s victory, according to Obi, is bizarre.
“The first respondent, forgetting its role as an electoral umpire, gave a Notice of Preliminary Objection to challenge the alleged incompetence of the petition.
“The global best practice for electoral umpires in national elections is that an electoral body must avoid creating the impression that it has no respect for neutrality in an electoral contest between candidates.
“The appellate courts have repeatedly admonished the first respondent of its need to remain neutral in election proceedings. However, the first respondent, hereof, has remained impervious to change.
“Therefore, it is not only an embarrassment but a repudiation of the duty of the first respondent when it adorns the garb of a contestant in an election it conducted as an umpire to raise preliminary objection against an election petition as in the case hereof.”
