Presidential Tribunal: Tinubu Will Not Be on Ballot If There will be a Rerun – LP gives reasons

The Obi-Datti Campaign asserts that President Bola Tinubu won’t take part in a rerun election, citing compelling evidence presented at the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja.

Only he and Atiku Abubakar of the PDP are eligible, according to President Tinubu, who recently urged the court’s justices to exclude the LP’s candidate, Peter Obi, from any rerun presidential election.

Given that Obi finished third in the first race, attorneys for Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) have asked the court to prevent a rerun.

The LP, however, characterized Tinubu’s legal team’s stance as an attempt to impose his viewpoint on the justices. According to the evidence, the campaign holds that Tinubu wouldn’t take part in a rematch.

In an interview with ThisDay, the organization’s spokesperson and head of media, Diran Onifade, expressed his opinion that Tinubu’s actions, particularly the effort to exclude Obi and his challenges to the Kano election results, indicated that he was losing support in states like Rivers and Benue.

He said, “If there will be a second election, it will be between the top two. Tinubu will not be among the top two because all the issues we raised are enough to disqualify him. The certificate forgery, the drug trafficking forfeiture, the invalid nomination of his vice, etc. All those things would have disqualified him in the first place.

“So, he is not going to be on the ballot. All these things that his lawyers are doing are just to make him comfortable. They have misled him and are also trying to mislead and hoodwink the justices. The justices are not foolish.

“They are claiming that the constitution says that even if it’s true that he has a case of forfeiture, after 10 years, you have been cleared. But that is not true. They are just being clever by half. The section of the constitution they are talking about has so many subsections and only one of them has the 10-year moratorium and it doesn’t cover him.”

Speaking on the claim that Obi came third, Onifade said, “So, if there is going to be another election, their man would have been disqualified.

“We talked about the figure we put together from Rivers State and Benue State. He didn’t even address those at all. When you remove what they stole in Rivers and Benue states and you add to Obi’s, their own figures would have gone down and Obi won’t be in the third position again.”

When asked if the results in Rivers and Benue states would be sufficient to unseat either Tinubu or Atiku, he responded that the matter was still in litigation. He added, however, that the APC and Tinubu’s decision to challenge the Kano results at the last minute while simultaneously pleading to have Obi excluded from a potential rerun left much to be desired.

He noted, “We can’t prejudge the tribunal. But let’s say for the sake of your question, if you remove one million from eight million, it will go down to seven million. And when you add that one million to six million, that will amount to seven million. We have a professor who did all the calculations. It’s a pity that we didn’t have the time to carry out the calculations nationwide. They know it’s damaging to them.

“If not, how come that a state like Kano that we are not even contesting with them, was brought to the tribunal to challenge that votes were stolen from them in Kano?” Onifade queried.”

He explained that “their (APC) calculation is that by the time what they stole from Rivers and Benue states are deducted, their votes would have gone down and if the tribunal grants them what they claimed they lost in Kano, it might make up for what is deducted from them.

“Even those of us who are laymen, know that their lawyers are playing mind games because it’s one thing they would say in the evidence they have tendered and it’s another that their witnesses will say under oath.

“For instance, under oath, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele admitted that their man forfeited money and it’s about narcotics trafficking. He admitted that under oath. The same forfeiture they have been going about saying that it’s a civil case. Then again, the INEC witness even though he tendered a document that the uploading on IReV was not part of the mandatory process, in his testimony before the justices, changed it and said the process included uploading through the IReV.

“The court document that they tendered, they said the case was about narcotics trafficking. That’s the exact words in that document. And then the certificate issue. The one he presented to INEC was not issued by the university. That’s a forgery.”