Atiku to Tinubu: I Have Been Contesting Presidential Polls Because of My Drug-free Record

The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the just concluded general election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has told the President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, that unlike him, he has consistently contested presidential elections because of his “drug-free record”.

Besides, Atiku said that he “has never had any controversy surrounding his age, circumstances of his birth, state of origin, gender, educational qualification, health status, working career and citizenship, all issues bordering on constitutional qualification to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

Atiku stated this in his reply to Tinubu’s Notice of Preliminary Objection against his petition challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential election.

In his Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on April 12, by his lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), the President-elect had urged the court to dismiss the petition filed by Atiku and his party the PDP, for been vague, an abuse of court process, that the suit was not properly constituted and that the reliefs sought by the petitioners are not grant-able.

But replying, Atiku said Tinubu has demonstrated inconsistency as to his actual date of birth, the secondary schools he attended (Government College Ibadan); his state of origin, gender; actual name; certificates evidencing universities attended (Chicago State University). 

“The purported degree certificate of the 2nd respondent allegedly acquired at the Chicago State University did not belong to him but to a female (F) described as ‘F’ in the certificate bearing the name Bola Tinubu. 

“The 2nd respondent did not disclose to the 1st respondent his voluntary acquisition of citizenship of Republic of Guinea with Guinean Passport No. DO00001551, in addition to his Nigerian citizenship. The 2nd respondent is hereby given notice to produce the original copies of his said two passports,” he said. 

Atiku further submitted that Tinubu has record of criminal forfeiture of the sum of $460,000.00 for a drug-related offence before the United States District Judge John A Nordberg in the 2 respondent’s First Heritage Account No. 263226700, being proceeds of narcotics-trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C 1956 and 1947 for an offence involving narcotics. 

Responding to the issue of failure to join other presidential candidates in the petition, Atiku said that the party including himself does not have any grievance against Mr Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso or any other candidate because they were not returned as the winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commissiom (INEC).

Atiku, on another issue, said that the defence of non-control of the eco-system and of third-party network providers is an after-thought, adding that Tinubu is not competent to offer such gratuitous defence on behalf of INEC.

While claiming that INEC persisted in the violation of its own regulations, Atiku said: “As at the time INEC commenced uploading of results to the IReV, the presiding officers were no longer at their polling units.

“As at March 18, 2023, only results from 166,551 polling units out of 176,846 polling units across the country, had been uploaded on the IReV, as shown in the extract of the Data Report from the IReV.”

Besides, Atiku said that the place, time and circumstances of the uploads remain unknown to the petitioners as known of the petitioners’ agents were physically present to monitor the transmission of the purported results.

Responding to Tinubu’s claim that the petition was an abuse of court process because of an earlier suit filed by some PDP governors at the Supreme Court on February 28, Atiku pointed out that the parties in the said suit are not the same as the parties in the instant proceedings.

“The proceedings, which were commenced by originating summons dated 28 February, 2023, filed by the Attorneys General of Adamawa State, Akwa-Ibom State, Bayelsa State, Delta State Edo States and Sokoto State as plaintiffs, had since been discontinued. 

“The grounds of the petition are competent as they comply with section 134(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Electoral Act, 2022. The election of the 2nd respondent did not meet the applicable requirements enunciated in section 134(3) of the Electoral Act. 

“The petition is properly constituted pursuant to section 133 of the Electoral Act, 2022 and paragraph 4(1) & (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Election Petition. 

“The petitioners’ prayers are grantable pursuant to paragraph 4(3) of the Rules of procedure for Election Petition and section 136(1), (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022,” Atiku said.

Credit: This Day