Martin Onovo, the National Conscience Party (NCP) presidential candidate in 2015, has stirred controversy by claiming that President Bola Tinubu came a distant third in the 2023 presidential elections. Onovo argues that Tinubu was not qualified to participate and alleges irregularities in the Supreme Court’s handling of the appeal.
Onovo, in an interview with The Sun, insists that Tinubu lost the election and challenges the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in hearing the appeal. He questions the court’s impartiality and claims that a “dysfunctional judiciary” cannot alter the facts.
The former NCP flag bearer highlights several grounds on which he believes Tinubu was ineligible, including perjury, forgery, dual citizenship, and the forfeiture of $460,000 proceeds of narcotics trafficking in Chicago, USA.
Onovo states;
“It has been in the public space that court officials and judges are easily bribed by litigants to obviate delays and or obtain favourable judgements. The majority of Nigerians know the facts, a dysfunctional judiciary cannot change the facts. Jagaban Tinubu was not qualified to participate in the election ab initio and he lost the election woefully. He was a very distant third. Jagaban Tinubu himself knows this. Both local and international observers reported the fraud. The international community knows this and international news organisations have published these widely. Even the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) did a report on the fraudulent results in Rivers State.
“It is our considered opinion that the Supreme Court panel was unlawful and so lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The panel clearly violated the constitutional Federal Character requirement. It is beyond doubt that Bola Tinubu was not qualified to participate in the election on several grounds. These grounds include perjury, forgery, dual citizenship, forfeiture of $460,000 proceeds of narcotics trafficking in Chicago, USA.”
The controversial remarks come amidst ongoing debates about the integrity of the 2023 presidential elections and the role of the judiciary in addressing election-related disputes.
