Tinubu, Atiku’ candidature: Court fixes Buhari’s ex-Minister Nwajiuba’s suit against duo for October 6

An Abuja Federal High Court has fixed October 6 for the hearing a suit seeking to disqualify the Presidential Candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Bola Tinubu, and the People’s Democratic Party candidate, Atiku Abubakar, for allegedly breaching the 2022 Electoral Act.

A presidential aspirant and immediate past Minister of State for Education, Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba, and the Incorporated Trustees of Rights for All International, a non-governmental organization, had filed the suits against both Tinubu and Atiku.

They alleged that the primary elections were marred by corruption and massive vote buying with majority of the delegates bought over with thousands of dollars.

The suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their lawyer, Mr Nnamdi Okere.

Other defendants in the suit are the APC, PDP, Attorney-General of the Federation and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Giving an interim ruling on Friday, Justice Inyang Ekwo ordered service of all the relevant court processes and the hearing notices on all the defendants in the case.

Nwajiuba had secured the leave of the court to sue the defendants.

The ex-Minister, who polled just one vote at the primary election held on June 8,2022 included in his proof of evidence a video showing the immediate past Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, complaining that delegates at the APC primary sold their votes.

The plaintiffs also queried Tinubu’s source of income and his educational qualifications.

Among others, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the 3rd defendant (Tinubu), who had previously sworn an affidavit in the INEC nomination form declaring that he lost his primary and secondary school documents and benefitted therefrom, cannot in a later affidavit deny and abandon same facts deposed in the previous affidavit and thus falsely contradicting his academic qualifications.

The plaintiffs attached to the suit, copies of affidavits Tinubu deposed to while he was the governorship candidate of the Alliance for Democracy in Lagos state.

“That the entire circumstances surrounding the two depositions of the 3rd defendant points to the fact that they are false and misleading and cannot be relied upon.

“That the possession of a higher degree does not substitute the minimum requirement of law, where the minimum academic requirement is manifestly absent by an avowed fact.

“That the possession of a higher educational qualification such as first degree or masters degree are predicated on the minimum educational qualification as provided in the constitution”, the plaintiffs averred.

The plaintiffs, therefore, urged the court to determine: “Whether the All Progressives Congress is exempted from compliance with section 90(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, having presented the 3rd defendant (Tinubu) as its presidential candidate to the 6th defendant (INEC) and the 6th defendant accepted and published same, being the name of a person whose source of N100m contribution fee for the nomination form and expression of interest form was not verified.

“Whether the constitutional provision prescribing the academic qualification of candidates and prescribing minimum qualification of school certificate or its equivalent has been complied with by the 3rd defendant who on oath, have admitted that he does not possess such minimum qualification prescribed in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria”.

They equally urged the court to also disqualify Atiku who was cited as the 4th Defendant in the suit for also engaging in vote-buying.

They want the court to determine; “Whether the conduct of the 3rd and 4th defendants (Tinubu and Atiku) and their agents who by way of corrupt inducement of delegates with US Dollars, which being a foreign currency and non-legal tender in Nigeria under the CBN Act, and the possession which requires declaration under the EFCC Act, used the Dollars for inducement of votes in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants have rendered the votes of such delegates cast in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants at the 1st and 2nd defendant’s special conventions illegal, void and invalid and of no effect whatsoever; and thus inhibiting the 3rd and 4th defendants from benefiting from the proceeds of their own gross illegalities.”