Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), says the President-elect, Bola Tinubu, has dual citizenship of Nigeria and Guinea.
Atiku, in a fresh process he filed before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, also accused Tinubu of not disclosing facts of his constitutional qualifications in his Form EC9 submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), contrary to the provisions of the law.
In the response filed by his lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche, SAN, Atiku said that his identity, comprising age, state of origin and educational qualifications, had never been in dispute.
He insisted that Tinubu was constitutionally disabled from contesting for the office of president.
The PDP presidential candidate, amongst other things, alleged that Tinubu was unfit to lead Nigeria, having been indicted for drug-related offences in the United States and made to forfeit a sum of $460,000 as a compromise agreement.
Reacting to Tinubu’s response in which he described Atiku as a serial election loser, the former Vice President said that Tinubu was a giant in forfeiture, drug-related offences and failure to disclose dual nationality to INEC.
“The comparison of the second respondent (Tinubu) with the first petitioner ( Atiku) who had attained the eminent position of Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for eight years is totally unfounded”, he said.
Atiku said that he was challenging the declaration of Tinubu as president-elect on the grounds that Tinubu and APC did not win a majority of the lawful votes cast in the Feb. 25 presidential election.
He said that Tinubu failed part of the constitutional requirements, having failed to secure 25 per cent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, as constitutionally required.
He argued that the return of Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election was undue, unlawful and invalid because he did not meet the constitutional requirements.
Atiku said that Tinubu deliberately chose not to answer points of substance in the petition and opted for extraneous facts, contradictory, evasive, speculative and vague assertions.