APC decides not to open a defence in Atiku’s petition

On Wednesday, the All Progressives Congress (APC) told the Presidential Election Petition Court that it would not open defense in response to a petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Abubakar Atiku, challenging the conduct and declaration of the presidential election held on February 25.

The APC argued that it would not “participate in the whipping of dead horses” by defending the election results.

Through its lead lawyer, Prince Lateef Olasunkanmi Fagbemi SAN, the APC argued that the petitions filed by the Labour Party and the PDP had no merit.

After questioning Senate Majority Leader Michael Opeyemi Bamidele, the Star witness for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the senior lawyer decided against opening defense in Atiku’s suit.

After being grilled by Fagbemi, Senator Bamidele, a lawyer, testified that a court ruling forfeiting $460,000 of Tinubu’s money to the United States of America (USA) would not be grounds for revoking Tinubu’s election.

In response to Fagbemi, the witness stated that Tinubu had not been charged, indicted, or sentenced for any criminal charges in any American court, and that civil forfeiture cannot substitute for a criminal trial and conviction.

According to Senator Bamidele, “Bola Ahmed Tinubu has a clean bill of health as far as criminal indictment is concerned because he was never indicted and convicted by any American court.”

The Senate Majority Leader responded to another query by saying that he had known President Tinubu, a natural-born Nigerian citizen, for over 35 years.

Fagbemi stated, “Having taken a sober reflection of the entire case, we have enough evidence and we are not calling any witnesses; we do not intend to whip dead horses, we announce the closure of the case of the 3rd respondent.” This was after APC had reviewed the witness’s testimony and decided it was time to open defense.

Before the Presidential Election Petition Court on February 25, the Senate Majority Leader argued that President Bola Tinubu did not need to win the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) with 25% of the vote in order to be proclaimed the victor of the election.

The witness, who was cross-examined by Atiku and PDP’s attorney Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, testified that Abuja has no unique status besides that it is the Federal Capital of Nigeria.

The witness acknowledged that FCT is a symbol of unity, but argued that other state capitals like Kano, Ibadan, and Enugu are also centers of unity, and so the committee’s report on the placement of FCT did not advocate a special status for FCT.

President Tinubu received 19.4 percent of the vote in the FCT, he agreed with the petitioner’s attorney.

The fact that Tinubu became the first president to be declared without receiving 25% of the vote in the Federal Capital Territory and without winning his home state was not important, the witness testified.

The witness testified that although Tinubu’s name appears in the US court’s ruling on the forfeiture of $460,000, this is because it was a civil process and not a criminal one.

The witness acknowledged that charges, a trial, and an indictment are necessary for a conviction under further cross examination by Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, counsel for the APC.

According to the witness, the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled in favor of INEC in a challenge filed by Labour Party regarding the mode of collation of election results.

Lateef Fagbemi, for the APC, made an announcement after President Tinubu’s defense was concluded following the testimony of his lone witness, Wole Olanipekun, SAN.

Respondents have been granted 10 days to file their final written addresses with the court, while the petitioner has been allowed 7 days to respond and 5 days to react on a point of law.

The date for the approval of the final written addresses will be informed to the parties, according to Presiding Justice Haruna Tsammani of the Presidential Election Petition Court.