Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the February 25 presidential election, firmly maintains that President Bola Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the poll was both unjust and unconstitutional.
Challenging Tinubu’s victory before the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja, Atiku insists on unseating Tinubu.
In his final address to support his petition seeking the nullification of Tinubu’s election, Atiku emphasized that Tinubu’s involvement in a $460,000 drug-related forfeiture case in the US, which he admitted to and his witnesses confirmed, disqualifies him from contesting for Nigeria’s presidency.
Atiku dismissed Tinubu’s claim and that of his witness, stating that the classification of the forfeiture as a “civil action” was irrelevant. He argued that a United States of America Court acted on Tinubu’s indictment before imposing the forfeiture fine on him.
The address, endorsed by Atiku’s lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, highlighted the facts surrounding the forfeiture of $460,000 by Tinubu to the United States Government, which were neither contested nor disputed by the respondents.
Atiku contends that any form of forfeiture, whether “civil” or “criminal,” is rooted in the commission of a crime, making Tinubu’s victory unconstitutional.
Based on these arguments, Atiku asked the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to invoke Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution and nullify Tinubu’s victory.