The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has dismissed the Labour Party (LP) and Peter Obi’s petition against President Bola Tinubu on claims that 25% of the votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, is required to win the presidential election.
The court in striking out the petition said that Abuja is Like Other States, adding that FCT residents have no special privileges as the petitioners claimed.
This was made known by Justice Haruna Tsammani, the lead judge of the 5-man panel while delivering judgment during the sitting of the Presidential Election Petition court on Wednesday, September 6, 2023, at the court of appeal in Abuja.
According to him, Section 134 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) stipulates that a presidential candidate must attain or score a majority of votes cast in a presidential election, where two or more candidates are involved, and at least 25% in two-thirds of the 36 States and FCT to meet the constitutional requirement to be declared as duly elected as President of Nigeria.
The tribunal stated that the petitioners’ interpretation of Section 134(2)(b) of the 1999 constitution is “completely fallacious, if not outrightly ridiculous”
The tribunal which distinguished interpretation of statute from the Constitution, pointed out that a preamble of the 1999 Constitution showed that all citizens are equal, where no one is superior or inferior to another even by vote.
Futile and narrow interpretation of constitution
Tsammani pointed out that the petitioners went on a futile and narrow interpretation of Section 134 of the Constitution when they assumed that Abuja voters have more value to the extent of vetoing the votes of other voters in other states.
Explaining the word “and” as used in Section 134, the tribunal held that the FCT shall be seen “as if it were one of the states of the federation”, adding that the FCT shall be taken into the calculation of the two-thirds of the states of the federation as if it were the 37 states.
Citing Section 299 of the Constitution, the tribunal held that, “FCT is to be treated like any other state ” and it is not superior or inferior to other states, adding that if the framers of the Constitution had something different they would have gone ahead to make it a requirement.
