Alleged Vote Buying: Court Set to Hear Nwajiuba’s 

Suit Seeking Disqualification of Tinubu, Atiku

Alex  Enumah in Abuja

Justice Inyang Ekwo of a Federal High Court in Abuja, has fixed October 6 for hearing in a suit seeking the disqualification of the presidential candidate of the All Progressive Congress (APC), Bola Tinubu, for allegedly acting in breach of the Electoral Act.

Justice Ekwo fixed the date for hearing shortly after he ordered service of all the relevant court processes as well as hearing notices on all the defendants in the matter.

The suit filed by the immediate past Minister of State for Education, and a presidential aspirant under the platform of the APC, Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba and a Non Governmental Organisation, the Incorporated Trustees of Rights for All International, is accusing Tinubu and the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party 9PDP), Atiku Abubakar, of engaging in “massive vote buying” in the two separate primary elections that produced them as presidential candidates.

The plaintiff in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/942/2022, stressed that the conduct of the two presidential candidates seriously marred the primary electoral process because majority of the delegates were bought over with dollars.

Besides Tinubu and Atiku, the APC, PDP, the Attorney General of the Federation and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are other defendants in the suit. 

Nwajiuba, who polled only one vote at the primary election that held on June 8, included in his proof of evidence, a video recording showing the immediate past Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, decrying that delegates at the APC primary sold their votes.

Outside, the allegation of vote buying, Plaintiffs are querying Tinubu’s source of income and his educational qualifications.

In the suit filed by their lawyer, Mr. Nnamdi Okere, plaintiffs urged the court to declare that the 3rd defendant (Tinubu), “who had previously sworn an affidavit in the INEC nomination form declaring that he lost his primary and secondary school documents and benefitted therefrom, cannot in a later affidavit deny and abandon same facts deposed in the previous affidavit and thus falsely contradicting his academic qualifications.”

The Plaintiffs attached to the suit, copies of affidavits Tinubu deposed while he was the governorship candidate of the Alliance for Democracy (AD) in Lagos State.

“That the entire circumstances surrounding the two depositions of the 3rd defendant points to the fact that they are false and misleading and cannot be relied upon. 

“That the possession of a higher degree does not substitute the minimum requirement of law, where the minimum academic requirement is manifestly absent by an avowed fact,” plaintiffs averred.

Among other things, the plaintiffs, prayed the court to determine; “Whether the All Progressives Congress is exempted from compliance with Section 90(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, having presented the 3rd defendant (Tinubu) as its presidential candidate to the 6th defendant (INEC) and the 6th defendant accepted and published same, being the name of a person whose source of N100m contribution fee for the nomination form and expression of interest form was not verified.

“Whether the constitutional provision prescribing the academic qualification of candidates and prescribing minimum qualification of school certificate or its equivalent has been complied with by the 3rd defendant who on oath, has admitted that he does not possess such minimum qualification prescribed in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.”

The plaintiffs equally urged the court to also disqualify Atiku who was cited as the 4th Defendant in the suit, for also engaging in vote buying.

They want the court to determine; “Whether the conduct of the 3rd and 4th defendants (Tinubu and Atiku) and their agents who by way of corrupt inducement of delegates with US Dollars, which being a foreign currency and non-legal tender in Nigeria under the CBN Act, and the possession which requires declaration under the EFCC Act, used the Dollars for inducement of votes in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants have rendered the votes of such delegates cast in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants at the 1st and 2nd defendant’s special conventions illegal, void and invalid and of no effect whatsoever; and thus inhibiting the 3rd and 4th defendants from benefiting from the proceeds of their own gross illegalities.”