It has been claimed that President Bola Tinubu threatened there would be anarchy if election results were upturned.
According to our investigation, the claim originated from the lawyers representing President Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima during the Presidential Election Petition Court proceedings.
The lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun, made final arguments defending the validity of President Tinubu’s election.
Background:
The case at the tribunal stems from the presidential election held in Nigeria on February 25. President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, was declared the winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). However, the presidential candidates of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, along with their parties, are challenging the validity of Tinubu’s election.
They alleged that INEC did not comply substantially with the guidelines and regulations for the conduct of the 2023 general elections and relevant electoral laws and sought the nullification of Tinubu’s election on these grounds.
The petitioners also raised concerns about Tinubu’s qualification, alleging a United States District Court judgment ordering his forfeiture of funds suspected to be proceeds of drug trafficking and argued that Tinubu did not score the required 25 per cent of the lawful votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The five-member panel had on July 5, given the respondents in the two separate petitions 10 days to file their written address, while the petitioners were given seven days to reply.
Tinubu’s lawyers led by Olanipekun, asked the tribunal to consider the FCT as the 37th state, implying that Tinubu had met the requirement of scoring 25 per cent of lawful votes cast in the FCT.
The lawyers further stated that any alternative interpretation of the constitutional provision would lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy, and alteration of the legislature’s intention.
“May we draw the attention of the court to the fact that there is no punctuation (comma) in the entire section 134(2)(b) of the constitution, particularly, immediately after the ‘States’ and the succeeding ‘and’ connecting the Federal Capital Territory with the States. In essence, the reading of the subsection has to be conjunctive and not disjunctive, as the Constitution clearly makes it so. Pressed further, by this constitutional imperative, the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is taken ‘as if’ it is the 37th State, under and by virtue of section 299 of the Constitution.
“With much respect, any other interpretation different from this will lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy and alteration of the very intention of the legislature,” Olanipekun said.
However, while the lawyers emphasized the potential consequences of an alternative interpretation, TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) notes their statements were made within the legal context of the court proceedings and there is no direct statement or threat made by President Tinubu himself regarding the possibility of anarchy if election results were upturned.
Verdict:
The claim suggesting that President Tinubu threatened anarchy is misleading.