25% Votes: Voters In The FCT Are Not Special Than Those In Other States – Tinubu Tells Tribunal

President Bola Tinubu has pleaded with the Presidential Election Tribunal not to nullify the election on the basis of obtaining 25% of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, as a constitutional prerequisite for winning the presidency. President Tinubu told the Tribunal that voters in FCT are not special than those in other states hence their votes should be treated equally.

THISDAY reports that, Tinubu, represented by his lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), argued that the votes from the FCT hold no special rights than votes from other states because it is just like any other state in the country.

The lawyer opined that it would be unjust to annul the presidential polls because of the nullification of election in one state, some local governments and wards. He urged the court to disregard the suit filed by the petitioners and rule in his client’s favour.

Olanipekun contended that Section 3(1) of the Constitution specifically names the 36 states, while the sidenote indicates: “States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

To provide clarity, Section 299 states: “The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation…” The phrase ‘as if’ has been defined in Corpus Juris Secundum, page 298, to connote “in the same manner and to the same extent.”

He said, “Nullifying the election nationwide due to the nullification of an election in one state, certain local government areas, wards, or units would lead to absurdity and manifest injustice, in my opinion.”

“In conclusion, we argue that in any election where the electorate exercise their plebiscite, there are no privileged ballots or voters. Furthermore, residents of the FCT should not possess special voting rights over residents of any other state in the federation, akin to the concepts of preferential shareholding in Company Law. We request the court to rule against the petitioners and in favor of the respondent on this matter,” he added.

What are your thoughts about this?

Source : THISDAY

Dimejisamuel (
)