Struggle continues as Atiku moves to appeal tribunal judgement at Supreme Court

Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has rejected the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal upholding the election of President Bola Tinubu.

The former Vice President has also vowed to challenge the judgement at the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023, the PEPT ruled that the petition against Tinubu by Atiku and the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi lacked merit.

The court dismissed the petitions and declared Tinubu as the authentic winner of the February 25 presidential election. 

The judgement was delivered by the Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Haruna Tsammani, assisted by Justice Stephen Adah, Justice Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Justice Moses Ugo and Justice Abba Mohammed.

After dismissing Atiku’s petition, Justice Tsammani said, “This petition accordingly lacks merit. I affirm the return of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The parties are to bear their cost.”⁣

However, Atiku has rejected the verdict as the former Vice President immediately instructed his lawyers to challenge the judgment at the Supreme Court.

Atiku’s Lead Counsel, Chris Uche, SAN has confirmed the development, saying his client is ready to seek redress at the apex court.

“The judgment has been delivered but we have not received justice. Luckily, the law has given us leverage to go on appeal to the Supreme Court. We have instructions from our clients to go to the Supreme Court. The struggle continues,” Uche disclosed.

In the same vein, the Labour Party has rejected the tribunal judgement, saying justice was not served in the petitions against the President and his party.

In a statement released after the judgment, the National Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party, Obiorah Ifoh said the party would announce its next course of action upon consultations with its lawyers after receiving the Certified True Copy of the judgments.

The party argued that the tribunal judgment “did not reflect the law and the desire of the people.”