Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), has responded to President Bola Tinubu’s legal team, who raised concerns about Atiku submitting an expired Guinean passport that supposedly belonged to Tinubu. Atiku’s lead counsel, Chris Uche SAN, addressed these accusations in his final written statement, dated July 20. Uche accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of misusing substantial funds designated for the 2023 elections.
Atiku claims that Tinubu’s reported criminal conviction and possession of dual citizenship are widely known and should have been grounds for INEC to disqualify him. Tinubu’s legal team, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, did not explicitly confirm or deny Tinubu’s dual citizenship in their written response. However, Olanipekun argued that even if Tinubu does hold dual citizenship, it does not legally prevent him from running for the presidency.
Earlier, on June 25, Chris Uche SAN presented one of Atiku’s witnesses, Barrister Mike Enahoro Ebah (PW27), who claimed that Tinubu possesses dual citizenship in Nigeria and Guinea, among other allegations, prior to the elections. Ebah provided documents such as Tinubu’s service certificate from Mobil Nigeria Plc, an alleged extract of his Guinean passport, and particulars submitted to INEC during his campaign for Lagos state governor.
In response to the submitted Guinean passport’s extract, Olanipekun argued that the downloaded document, claimed to be Tinubu’s Guinean passport, displays an expiry date in 2020.
During the proceedings at the Presidential Election Petitions Court, Chief Wole Olanipekun, representing President Bola Tinubu, argued that Atiku Abubakar intended to embarrass his client by presenting an expired document. Olanipekun suggested that even if Tinubu had been issued the alleged Guinean passport, the laws of Guinea required proof within Nigeria. He further contended that the Nigerian Constitution does not prevent Tinubu from running for the presidency, even if he holds dual citizenship.
In response to Olanipekun’s argument, Chris Uche, lead counsel for Atiku, maintained that acquiring Guinean citizenship went against the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution. Uche insisted that Section 137(1)(a) of the Constitution prohibits a person aspiring to be Nigeria’s president from holding citizenship of another country. Uche urged the Presidential Election Petitions Court to disqualify Tinubu on these grounds, emphasizing that a president represents and symbolizes the country and should not be allowed to declare allegiance to another nation.
Uche also addressed the issue of INEC’s claim that technical glitches prevented the real-time transmission of presidential election results. He drew attention to Lawrence Bayode, an INEC witness, who openly stated in court that INEC did not report the glitches to Amazon Web Services (AWS), the cloud platform the commission used to secure and upload the votes onto its portal.
The defense maintains that this admission raises doubts about the credibility of INEC’s explanation. Uche suggested that INEC’s failure to promptly inform AWS about the glitches undermines their claim that technical challenges were the cause for the delayed transmission of election results.
The legal battle between Atiku’s legal team and Tinubu’s lawyers continues as they present their arguments before the Presidential Election Petitions Court. The court will ultimately decide whether Tinubu’s alleged possession of a Guinean passport and dual citizenship will affect his eligibility to run for the office of the Nigerian presidency.
As the proceedings unfold, both legal teams strive to prove their points and persuade the court in favor of their clients. The case not only focuses on the alleged passport and citizenship issue but also raises concerns regarding the transparency and credibility of INEC’s management of election results. The court’s judgment will have significant implications for the electoral process and potentially impact future presidential candidates.
The Nigerian public eagerly awaits the resolution of this legal battle, hopeful that the court’s decision will provide clarity on the eligibility requirements for individuals aspiring to the highest office in the country.
In response to the claim of a technical glitch during the election, Uche strongly disagreed and questioned INEC’s admission that they did not report the issue to Amazon Web Service or the device manufacturers. Uche argued that this admission indicates that the “technical glitch” was either a fabricated excuse or a self-induced problem. He highlighted that with a project of over N355 billion, it is unreasonable to assume that INEC would fail to report or hold anyone accountable for such issues.
Uche further criticized INEC Chairman Yakubu Mahmood for announcing a winner of the election when the issues with BVAS (Biometric Voter Accreditation System) and IREV (Integrated Result and Electoral Viewing) were critical to the 2023 presidential election according to the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.
Based on these arguments, Uche appealed to the court to invalidate Tinubu’s election due to significant non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
