Removing me as president over failure to score 25% in Abuja may trigger anarchy in Nigeria - President Tinubu reportedly tells tribunal

President Bola Tinubu has allegedly warned members of the presidential elections tribunal that removing him as president could lead to a breakdown of law and order in Nigeria.

Peoples Gazzette reports that the President's counsel, Wole Olanipekun, said this in his final defense presented to the tribunal where Tinubu's victory in the February 25, 2023 Presidential election is being challenged by PDP's Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi of the Labour Party. 

 

The report claims the President's legal team admitted President Tinubu's failure to score 25 per cent of votes cast in Nigeria’s capital Abuja but said it was insufficient to overturn his victory as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

 

“Any other interpretation different from this will lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy and alteration of the very intention of the legislature,” President Tinubu’s lawyers led by Wole Olanipekun reportedly said in their final defense statement to the court

The lawyers were specifically addressing a section of the Nigerian Constitution that said a presidential candidate must score 25 per cent of votes in two-thirds of Nigeria’s 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, or Abuja.

 

The President's legal team said courts have always been careful about giving extreme interpretation of the Constitution that could spark chaos.

“Our courts have always adopted the purposeful approach to the interpretation of our Constitution, as exemplified in a host of decisions. Even if there was no election in one State (including the FCT), or even if the election of a State/States (including the FCT) is/are voided, the entire election cannot be voided or canceled. 

In concluding our arguments on this issue, we urge the court to hold that any election where the electorate exercise their plebiscite, there is neither a ‘royal’ ballot nor ‘royal’ voter; and that residents of the FCT do not have any special voting right over residents of any other State of the federation, in a manner similar to the concepts of preferential shareholding in Company Law.

We urge this court to resolve this issue against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent” the lawyers said