President Bola Tinubu has delivered a stern warning that his removal from office could plunge Nigeria into a state of lawlessness and disorder.
As the tribunal considered the petitions filed by Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party and Peter Obi of the Labour Party, the interpretation of a constitutional clause became a focal point of contention.
President Tinubu’s lawyers, led by renowned legal expert Wole Olanipekun, asserted that despite his failure to secure 25 percent of the votes in Abuja, it did not justify overturning his victory as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The legal team cited a section of the Nigerian Constitution, which stipulates that a presidential candidate must score 25 percent of votes in two-thirds of Nigeria’s states, including the Federal Capital Territory.
“The consequences of any interpretation diverging from this constitutional provision would be absurd, leading to chaos, anarchy, and the distortion of the legislative intent,” argued Olanipekun.
READ ALSO: LP Chairman Exposes APC’s Alleged Plot for Rerun Election
The public discourse surrounding this clause had intensified after President Tinubu emerged as the victor in a closely contested three-way presidential race held in February.
However, his failure to secure the required percentage of votes in Abuja added a new layer of complexity to the interpretation of the Constitution.
President Tinubu’s legal team emphasized the judiciary’s historical approach of cautiously interpreting the Constitution to avoid potential chaos.
They cited numerous past cases as precedents that reflected a purposeful and measured interpretation of the Constitution.
Moreover, the legal team made the bold claim that even if President Tinubu had failed to garner any votes in Abuja and one additional state, he would still have emerged as the rightful winner of the election.
While this argument diverged from the petitions presented by Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, President Tinubu’s lawyers aimed to demonstrate that the election as a whole should not be nullified or canceled based on individual state outcomes.
Concluding their defense, the legal team urged the court to consider that every voter’s voice should carry equal weight, regardless of their geographical location.
They emphasized that residents of the Federal Capital Territory should not possess special voting rights compared to residents of other states in the federation, akin to preferential shareholding in company law.
