Atiku Breaks Silence On Tribunal Judgement

Atiku has broken his silence on the tribunal judgement.

Glamtush reports that the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last election, Atiku Abubakar, has vehemently rejected the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT).

This online platform recalls that PEPT on Wednesday struck out the petition filed by Atiku and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Peter Obi, challenging the victory of President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 25 election.

The tribunal held that the petitions by the candidates and their parties lacked merit, upholding the election of Tinubu.

The judgement was delivered by the chairman of the tribunal, Justice Haruna Tsammani, assisted by other members of the panel, namely justices Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Stephen Adah, Moses Ugo, and Abba Mohammed.

Reacting, Atiku, in a press conference in Abuja on Thursday, rejected the verdict, saying the battle to upturn Tinubu’s victory continues.

The former Vice President, who called himself a fighter, said he had instructed his legal team to file an appeal at the Supreme Court.

He said: “I am here today to give my official reaction to the judgement delivered yesterday by the Presidential Election Petition Court on the 2023 presidential elections.

“As you already know, I approached the court following the declaration by the INEC that the APC and its candidate are the winners of the February 25 elections. My decision to go to court was anchored in my belief that the court is the sanctuary of justice.

“Indeed, I am no stranger to legal battles. I can say that I have a fair idea of how the court system works. All through my career as a politician, I have been a fighter, and I will continue to fight.

“Our aim of conducting credible elections in the country was compromised by INEC through the way it managed the presidential election.

“I am afraid that the judgement of the PEPT yesterday failed to restore confidence in our dream of free and fair elections devoid of human manipulation.

“I am here to tell you that though the judgement of the court yesterday is respected, it is a judgement that I refused to accept.

“I refuse to accept it because I believe it is devoid of substantial justice. I have asked my lawyers to constitutionally activate the guaranteed right to appeal in the higher court.”