:
The Presidency and the All Progressives Congress (APC) have responded to the allegations made by Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 presidential election. Atiku held a press conference in Abuja to formally address the Supreme Court’s judgment, in which his lawsuit to challenge Tinubu’s electoral victory was dismissed.
In response, the Presidency took a direct jab at Atiku, stating that he entered the February election “with a fragmented and tattered umbrella.” The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, emphasized that the division within the PDP’s party platform made it unlikely for Atiku and the PDP to win the election.
The Supreme Court’s decision concluded a 171-day legal battle to nullify Tinubu’s election, with the rejection of appeals filed by Atiku and Peter Obi of the Labour Party. The Supreme Court, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, refused to consider Atiku’s attempt to introduce the academic records of the President from the Chicago State University as fresh evidence to support his allegation of certificate forgery against Tinubu.
Atiku expressed his disappointment with the Supreme Court’s verdict, characterizing it as an endorsement of illegality. He asserted that the real loser in the situation was Nigeria. He pledged to continue being involved in politics and the struggle for the betterment of the nation.
Atiku argued that if the Supreme Court legitimized illegality through its judgment, Nigeria would be doomed regardless of who occupies the Presidential seat. He called for constitutional amendments, including a six-year single term for the Presidency, the completion of election litigation before the winner’s inauguration, and a rotational presidency among the country’s six geopolitical zones.
The APC’s National Secretary, Senator Ajibola Basiru, criticized Atiku’s statements, describing him as desperate and suffering from post-election trauma. Basiru pointed out that Atiku’s attack on the judiciary, which he approached for redress, indicated a lack of regard for the institution. He also clarified that the law had been changed since 2011, and INEC no longer had the power to disqualify candidates based on inconsistent credentials. Additionally, he highlighted that the Supreme Court’s decision was based on the fact that Atiku had not pleaded forgery in his case.
Atiku’s call for a single six-year term for the President received mixed reactions, with some supporting it as a means to prevent prolonged rule by a tyrant and others expressing concerns about the potential for an unaccountable leader holding power for an extended period.