Supreme Court Upholds President Bola Tinubu’s Victory in Presidential Election

On Thursday, October 26, the Supreme Court confirmed President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the presidential election held on February 25.

This ruling marked the culmination of a series of legal challenges and opposition appeals, particularly those lodged by Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP).

The journey to this verdict began in September when the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja rejected opposition party petitions, which encompassed allegations of electoral fraud, violations by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and concerns regarding Tinubu’s eligibility to run for president.

The seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court meticulously evaluated the various grounds for appeal presented by the opposition. These grounds included claims of electoral malpractice, doubts surrounding Tinubu’s eligibility, concerns about compliance with the Electoral Act, and the percentage of votes garnered in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

Justice Inyang Okoro, who presided over the matter, articulated the court’s decision in favour of President Tinubu.

In his words,

“On the whole, having resolved all the issues against the appellant, it is my view that there is no merit in the appeal, and it is hereby dismissed.” He reaffirmed the lower court’s judgment that unequivocally declared President Tinubu as the duly elected President of Nigeria, stating, “The judgment of the court below delivered on September 6th, 2023, affirming the election of the second respondent as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is hereby affirmed.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court also dismissed Peter Obi’s appeal, which centred around the alleged double nomination of Vice-President Kashim Shettima by President Tinubu. The court explained that this issue had already been conclusively addressed in a previous ruling, emphasizing the need to bring an end to protracted litigation. The court stated that revisiting this issue would not be in accordance with legal principles and the finality of judgments.