The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, has approached the Supreme Court to nullify the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court which upheld the victory of President Bola Tinubu in the 2023 presidential election.

Atiku, in the Notice of Appeal predicated on 35 grounds, insisted that the tribunal in the judgement delivered by Justice Haruna Tsammani on September 6 committed a grave error and miscarriage of justice in its findings and conclusion in the petition challenging the declaration of Tinubu as president by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The Notice of Appeal filed by Atiku’s lead counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, is praying the apex court to set aside the whole findings and conclusions of the tribunal on the grounds that they did not represent the true picture of the grounds of his petition.

Atiku, a former Vice President, stated that the tribunal erred in law when it failed to nullify the February 25, 2023, presidential election on the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, “when by evidence before the tribunal, INEC conducted the election based on grave and gross misrepresentation contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.”

Atiku alleged that the tribunal erred in law by not taking into cognisance the Doctrine of legitimate expectation when the INEC failed to conduct the election in accordance with its own guidelines and the Electoral Act 2022.

READ ALSO: ‘UAE visa’: Tinubu’ll rule Nigeria with propaganda ― Atiku

The doctrine of legitimate expectation, he said, was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds a representation made to a person.

He said in Nigeria, the doctrine of legitimate expectation demands that a public authority shall respect and apply its stated position or sustained practice in exercising its powers on members of the public.

Atiku prayed the Supreme Court to declare him the authentic winner of the 2023 presidential election based on lawful votes cast by Nigerians during the poll.

The PDP presidential candidate said in the alternative, the apex court should order a rerun election to be conducted for him and Tinubu being the first and runner-up, respectively, in the February 25 presidential election.

While challenging the entire judgement of the tribunal, Atiku claimed that the lower court erred in law when it failed to determine his case with respect to the mandatory verification and confirmation required before the announcement of the results of the presidential election, pursuant to Section 64(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

He stated that all the Collation Officers, Returning Officers, and INEC Chairman were under a statutory obligation to confirm and verify that the results being collated were consistent with the results directly transmitted from the polling units before making final announcement on the general election.

Faulting the entire decision further, the appellant in ground eight claimed that the lower court erred in law when in its interpretation of Section 134(2) of the 1999 Constitution held that Tinubu does not need to score 25 per cent of lawful votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

“The issue submitted to the tribunal called for the interpretation of the material word and in the said Section 134(2), adding that the provisions of the Section are clear and unambiguous,” the former Vice President stated.

Atiku added that the tribunal made a grave error and miscarriage of justice in striking out the witness statement on oath and the entire evidence of his subpoenaed witnesses on the grounds that the said statements were not filed along with the petition.

He, therefore, maintained that the Supreme Court should nullify the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election on the grounds that he did not score the majority of the lawful votes in the poll.

No date has however been fixed for hearing in the appeal by the Supreme Court.

The Star