He filed the petition challenging the outcome of the election in March, roughly three weeks after INEC declared Mr Tinubu, the winner of the poll.

Advertisement

But hearing did not start until 30 May.

At Friday’s proceedings, Atiku’s lead lawyer, Chris Uche, called the 27th witness in the three-week trial.

The number of witnesses Atiku called fell far short of the 100 he proposed at the end of the prehearing session in the case.

Advertisement

Mike Enahoro-Ebah, tendered Mr Tinubu’s academic records from the Chicago State University and the president’s biodata, obtained from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Mr Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN, also tendered electoral documents in evidence to substantiate Atiku’s claims of electoral fraud allegedly perpetrated by INEC and Mr Tinubu.

Atiku is alleging that Mr Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC), in connivance with the electoral commission, stole the 25 February presidential election.

Mr Enahoro-Ebah was led in evidence by Mr Uche and later cross-examined by the respondents’ lawyers – Wole Olanipekun for Mr Tinubu, Lateef Fagbemi for APC and INEC’s Abubakar Mahmoud, all SANs.

Advertisement

Citing the prehearing session report of the court and provisions of the Electoral Act, Mr Uche informed the court that he had come to the end of Atiku’s suit challenging Mr Tinubu’s victory.

Referring to Mr Enahoro-Ebah, Mr Uche told the court, “My Lords, this will be our last witness in this case. Pursuant to the prehearing report and the Electoral Act, we apply to close the case for the petitioners.”

After the close of Atiku’s case, the respondents – INEC, APC and Mr Tinubu – are expected to open their defence soon.

Advertisement

The five-member panel of the court headed by Haruna Tsammani had scheduled 30 June for respondents to commence their defence.

But after Atiku concluded his case, a lawyer in INEC’s legal team, Kemi Pinheiro, also a SAN, urged the court to allow the electoral body to open its defence on 3 July.

Toeing Mr Pinheiro’s line, Messrs Olanipekun and Fagbemi prayed the court to allow them to open their clients’ (Mr Tinubu and APC)’s suits after the “Sallah break.”

The Sallah break meant to mark Eid-el-Kabir, an Islamic celebration, is expected to commence from 28 to 30 June.

After listening to the lawyers, the court granted the request and adjourned the suit until 3 July for defence.

Background

In the petition filed on 21 March, Atiku asked the presidential election court to either declare him the winner of the 25 February election or nullify the election and order a rerun.

In seeking to upturn Mr Tinubu’s victory, Atiku distilled seven prayers.

Atiku, Nigeria’s former vice president, urged the court to determine that Mr Tinubu was “not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast, and therefore the president-elect’s victory “is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional…null and void.”

He prayed the court to determine that Mr Tinubu, at the time of the election, was not qualified to contest the said election.

“That it may be determined that the return of the 2nd Respondent (Mr Tinubu) by the 1st respondent (INEC) was wrongful, unlawful, undue, null and void having not satisfied the requirements of the Electoral Act and constitution…which mandatorily requires” Mr Tinubu “to score bot less than one quarter (25%) of the lawful votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the federal and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

He urged the court to declare him the presidential election winner, as he “scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the presidential election.

In the alternative, Atiku asked the court to make an “order directing” INEC “to conduct a second election (run-off) between” him and Mr Tinubu.

“That the election to the office of the President of Nigeria held on 25 February 2023 be nullified, and a fresh election be ordered,” Atiku and his party, the PDP, prayed the court.

Premium Times