Supreme Court Judgement: Atiku suggests 6 geopolitical zones for rotating presidency

Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar has suggested certain policies that contribute to strengthening the nation’s constitutional democracy despite his defeat at the Supreme Court. He also stated that he will not be leaving politics, but will instead create space for the next generation to take the reins.

The Waziri Adamawa further suggested that election petitions be completed prior to inauguration and that the presidency should alternate between the six geopolitical zones. He also suggested eliminating all electoral procedural hurdles and imposing a single, six-year term.

Read Also: BREAKING:  S’Court: I’m not the larger loser in Nigeria – Atiku

During a global press conference held at the PDP National Headquarters in Abuja on Monday, Atiku revealed the information.

He acknowledged that Nigerian democracy is on life support but insisted that a constitutional revision was urgently needed to implement these proposals.

He said, “We can make constitutional modifications swiftly that will stop any court or tribunal from using legalese and technicalities to justify electoral heists and subvert popular will. Our democracy has to have purpose and significance. Above all, it needs to be represented through transparent, free, and fair elections that honour the people’s desire.

“First and foremost, electronic voting and result collation must be made mandatory. Even less developed nations like Nigeria are advancing in the twenty-first century. Societies can only be transformed by audacious actions.

“Secondly, we have to stipulate that any legal action resulting from a contentious election has to be finished prior to the installation of the victor. In 1979, this was the situation. There are currently too many elections and little time between them to avoid election lawsuits.

As things stand right now, it would be equivalent to asking robbers to keep their loot and use it to defend themselves while the case against them is pending. Rather than discouraging mandate banditry, it merely serves to legitimise it.

Thirdly, we need to make it mandatory for a presidential candidate to receive 50% plus 1 of the legitimate votes cast; if they don’t, there will be a run-off election between the top two contenders. This would guarantee a popular mandate and true representation. Instead of the present First-Past-the-Post method, most countries that elect their presidents adopt this Two-Round method (with minor modifications).

“Fourthly, we need to switch to a single six-year term for the president that is rotated among the six geopolitical zones in order to reduce the desperation of incumbents and distractions from governing as well as to promote equity and national unity.” This will stop multiple geopolitical zones from banding together to take turns holding the presidency at the expense of other zones.

“INEC should be required to confirm the credentials that candidates and their parties submit to it. If it is unable to do so, it should publicly declare as much and keep a record of it, maybe due to the institutions’ delayed response.

When a candidate presents conflicting credentials to INEC throughout separate election cycles and the electoral umpire accepts them without scrutiny, it suggests, at best, egregious negligence and, at worst, INEC leadership collaboration to disobey the law. A candidate shall be disqualified if they submit qualifying documents that are in conflict with one another or that are later revealed to be fabricated or falsified, even if the fabrication or falsification was done after the candidate was sworn into office.

“The onus of demonstrating that a document filed with INEC is counterfeit ought not to rest with the rival contenders in the race. An applicant for a job should never be held accountable for demonstrating that the individual they ultimately hired used falsified paperwork.

The former vice president continued by saying that the case should be reexamined in light of any fresh information if there is ever new evidence accumulating against an elected figure.

Atiku bemoaned the fact that the Supreme Court’s ruling has further weakened the democratic system.

“As for me and my party, this stage of our work is over,” he declared. But I’m not leaving you. For as long as I live, I will fight alongside other Nigerians to strengthen our democracy, uphold the rule of law, and bring about the kind of political and economic transformation that would allow our nation to realise its full potential. The younger Nigerian generation, who have much greater stakes than I do, ought to take the lead in that fight.

He bemoaned that the efforts had been completely undermined by the highest court, despite the fact that the PDP had provided the court with substantial evidence proving Tinubu was ineligible to run in that election.

“We presented irrefutable proof that Bola A. Tinubu was ineligible to run for president due to his forgery of the academic credential he submitted to INEC.” In actuality, INEC could have determined that Tinubu violated the law and shouldn’t have been permitted to run for office by simply reviewing the records of his prior violations that were in its hands.

“We provided indisputable proof of egregious errors, violence, and election manipulation. We presented irrefutable proof that INEC broke the Electoral Act and purposefully interfered with its own openly declared protocols and procedures in order to illegitimately proclaim Tinubu elected. Despite being final, the Supreme Court’s ruling raises a lot of questions.

According to Atiku, Nigerians currently have mistrust for the voting system.

Democracy is essentially on life support when people stop believing in and participating in elections. Additionally, the courts are reclaiming the right of voters to choose their leaders by confirming and legitimising the ongoing opaqueness of our election system. The other serious conclusion is that candidates in the upcoming elections in Nigeria ought to go to all lengths to secure the title of victor. This covers forgeries of educational and other documents, identity theft, impersonation, perjury, and assault.

“And while they do so, they should disregard all legal requirements as well as promises made by the electoral umpire’s leadership regarding what the law requires and what they will do to comply. And they would act in this way with the knowledge that our courts would either accept their actions or, at the very least, act as though they were unnoticed. The final piece of advice is to forgo seeking justice in court if you are cheated out of a victory because the mandate bandit will take advantage of your obvious proof of the robbery.