Wednesday marked the conclusion of President Bola Tinubu’s and the All Progressive Congress’ (APC) response to Atiku Abubakar’s petition challenging the results of the 25 February presidential election.
It advances the case before the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja to the point when the parties will exchange their last written arguments, and a time will be set for them.
Two of the top opposition candidates, Peter Obi of the Labour Party and Atiku of the Peoples Democratic Party, are contesting the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) declaration that Mr. Tinubu won the election.
In the presidential poll, the two finished second and third, respectively.
In their individual court applications, they claimed that widespread fraud and violation of legislative requirements by the electoral body, INEC, had tainted the election.
Additionally, they charged Mr. Tinubu with fabricating academic transcripts, trafficking illegal substances, and identity theft.
Both candidates had finished making their arguments, calling witnesses, and submitting a massive amount of evidence.
In both cases, INEC had earlier closed its own defense on Monday and Tuesday. This left Mr. Tinubu and his party, the APC, to take their turn when the petitioners’ three-week run of the case finished on June 23.
On Tuesday, Mr. Tinubu’s legal team, led by Wole Olanipekun, started attempting to refute the claims made by the two petitioners.
Mr. Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), presented many papers on Tuesday to refute allegations of academic record falsification and criminal conviction leveled against the president as part of the opening defense of Mr. Tinubu’s victory during the hearings of Atiku’s lawsuit.
Correspondence between the Nigerian Police Force and the US Embassy in Nigeria, as well as copies of Mr. Tinubu’s academic transcripts from Chicago State University in the US, were presented by Mr. Olanipekun.
The US Consular General in Lagos denied Mr. Tinubu had ever been convicted of a crime or detained in the US in response to the police’s inquiry. The correspondence was dated February 4, 2003.
Wednesday’s resumed hearings in Atiku’s case saw Mr. Olanipekun call the sole witness, Opeyemi Bamidele.
Nigerian senator Mr. Bamidele was admitted to the New York Bar in January 1999.
Mr. Bamidele stated in his statement before the five-member court panel led by Haruna Tsammani that Mr. Tinubu’s victory could not be overturned due to his forfeiture of $460,000 to the US government by way of a court order.
Mr. Bamidele, who represents Ekiti Central Senatorial District in the National Assembly, claimed Mr. Tinubu was never charged nor indicted by a US court during cross-examination by APC’s attorney, Lateef Fagbemi, a SAN.
Senator Bola Tinubu has a perfect record when it comes to criminal charges because no American court has ever brought charges against him or found him guilty, according to Mr. Bamidele.
The testimony made it clear that a forfeiture of civil property cannot be compared to a criminal trial or conviction.
In his testimony regarding the president’s purported dual citizenship, Mr. Bamidele claimed to have known Mr. Tinubu for more than three decades and claimed that he is a Nigerian citizen by birth.
Mr. Bamidele stated during cross-examination by Atiku’s attorney, Eyitayo Jegede, that Mr. Tinubu did not require a majority of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory to be proclaimed the victor of the 25 February presidential election.
Other than being the capital city of Nigeria, he claimed, the FCT has no unique status.
Mr. Bamidele acknowledged that Mr. Tinubu received 19.4% of the votes cast in the FCT overall during the election in February.
Mr. Tinubu didn’t need to receive the majority of votes in Abuja and Lagos, he said.
The APC accepts Mr. Tinubu’s testimony
When it came time for APC to present its case, Mr. Fagbemi claimed that his client choose to use Mr. Tinubu’s testimony as their defense.
“After giving the matter a sober review, we have enough evidence to proceed without calling any witnesses.
Atiku’s appeal was referred to as “dead” by Mr. Fagbemi, who added, “We do not intend to whip dead horses; we announce the closure of the case of the 3rd respondent (APC).”
The parties to the lawsuit were then instructed by the court to submit and exchange their final written addresses.
The court gave Mr. Tinubu and the APC ten days to submit their written addresses, while Atiku has seven days.
A date for the hearing of closing arguments will be given to the parties, according to Mr. Tsammani, the five-member panel’s chairman.
Following the conclusion of Mr. Tinubu and the APC’s defense, the court continued Mr. Obi’s case for the same reasons.
Mr. Tinubu had previously stated his desire to summon 39 witnesses to support his case before the entire trial in Atiku and Mr. Obi’s lawsuits began.
In a similar vein, the APC had pledged to submit 25 witnesses to refute claims of fraud made against Mr. Tinubu, its candidate.
However, they both fared poorly in comparison to the anticipated number of witnesses they had boasted of calling in front of the judge.
