News
2023 Election: Atiku Claims Victory In 21 State In Final Address Seeking Tinubu’s Removal At Tribunal
The former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Atiku Abubakar has urged the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja to recognize his victory in the presidential election, claiming he won in 21 states.
The claim, submitted via his legal team led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, is based on a response filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to Atiku’s petition challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu.
Atiku argues that INEC neither disputed nor denied his victory in the states he listed in its final brief of argument. He contends that the electoral body’s silence on his claim is an admission of its validity.
In his appeal, Atiku lists Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara as states where he emerged victorious.
Atiku insists that because INEC did not refute his claimed victories throughout the proceedings, the court should accept his claim as valid and uphold his election victory.
The PDP presidential candidate’s final written address, read in part: “Very importantly, the 1st Respondent (INEC) who conducted the election, made an open admission in paragraph 18 of its Reply to the petition, where it unequivocally stated thus:
“The 1st Respondent further avers that in compliance with extant laws and regulations, it diligently discharged its duties when it collated the 1st Petitioner’s scores at the election which aggregates to 6,984,520 winning only 21 States to wit: Adamawa, Akwa Ibom. Bauchi. Bavelsa. Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina. Kebbi. Kogi. Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.
“Indeed, as admitted by the 1st Respondent (INEC), the 1st Petitioner (Atiku) won in these 21 States.
“It is important to note that throughout the trial, the ist Respondent (INEC) neither refuted nor countermanded this critical averment nor denied it.
“We urge your Lordship to hold that this constitutes an admission that requires no further proof. It also constitutes an admission against interest.
