Atiku To Tribunal: Uphold INEC’S Declaration That I Won Presidential Election

Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, has asked the Presidential Election Petition Court, to uphold the declaration of the Independent National Electoral Commission that he won 21 states in the February 25 presidential election.

Also, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, has said President Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima’s reference to “anarchy” against the legal decision of their petition is dangerous and low.

Atiku made the request in his final address filed at the election petitions court on July 20 in support of his joint petition with the PDP seeking the nullification of INEC’S declaration of Ahmed Bola Tinubu as winner of the poll.

In the final address settled by his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche SAN, Atiku said INEC’S assertion that he won in 21 states was neither disputed, retracted, debunked nor claimed to be error through the proceedings of the tribunal so far.

INEC had in its response to Atiku’s petition, asserted that the PDP candidate won 21 states of the federation in the last presidential poll.

The 21 states listed by INEC as having been won by Atiku and PDP are Adamawa, Akwa Ibom. Bauchi. Bavelsa. Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina. Kebbi. Kogi. Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe, and Zamfara.

The former vice president said since the Independent National Electoral Commission, which on its own averments claimed that he won states and did not rebut the assertion throughout the proceedings, the tribunal should proceed to uphold the declaration.

Atiku pleaded with the tribunal to uphold the assertion of INEC in the process and declare him winner of the election.

Obi and LP’s submission is contained in the final written addresses in reply to the copies earlier filed by Tinubu and Shettima before the court.

Tinubu and Shettima had also stated in reaction to not scoring 25 percent in the FCT that it is not the position of the law, maintaining that “any other interpretation different from this will lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy and alteration of the very intention of the legislature.”