Tinubu’s Legal Team Warns Tribunal: Interpreting FCT as 37th State Could Result in Chaos

Share This Post

 

 

Screenshot 20220614 075730 Quick Grid 1

CURRENT REPORTS BLOG: In the ongoing Presidential Election Petition Court proceedings, lawyers representing President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima have requested the court to dismiss the petition filed by Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), along with his party. The counsel for Tinubu and Shettima, led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), presented their final written address, emphasizing that the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, should be treated as Nigeria’s 37th state. 

The Argument: FCT as the 37th State

Olanipekun, on behalf of the legal team representing Tinubu and Shettima, argued that the absence of a punctuation mark (comma) in section 134(2)(b) of the constitution indicates that the FCT should be considered a conjunctive part of the states. He emphasized that interpreting the subsection as disjunctive would lead to chaos and anarchy in the country. According to Olanipekun, the FCT should be taken “as if” it is the 37th state, in line with section 299 of the Constitution.

Refuting the Petition’s Claims

Olanipekun dismissed the arguments and testimonies presented by the petitioners as frivolous, bogus, and based on hearsay. He contended that the petition lacked merit, substance, and bona fide, urging the court to dismiss it. Olanipekun further argued that the petitioners’ contention that Tinubu’s election should be invalidated for not scoring 25% of the votes in the FCT was unsupported by legal facts. He emphasized that the use of “and” in the constitution is conjunctive, not disjunctive, reinforcing his position on the FCT’s status as the 37th state.

Seeking a Just Resolution

In his written address, Olanipekun highlighted the need for relevant and admissible evidence to support the petition. He stated that judges cannot perform miracles or manufacture evidence to assist a plaintiff in winning a case. Emphasizing the importance of a fair and evidence-based legal process, Olanipekun called for the dismissal of the petition, which he considered devoid of substantive proof.

PETER OBI VS. INEC FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS page 0001

PETER OBI VS. INEC FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS page 0002

Related Posts