The judgement on Peter Obi's case, coming immediately after the court's decision dismissing Atiku's appeal, brought down the curtain on the legal disputes over the validity of Mr Tinubu's election.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Peter Obi of the Labour Party challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The seven-member panel of the court led by Inyang Okoro summarily dismissed the appeal on Thursday, saying the appeal raised substantially the same issues as Atiku Abubakar's appeal which was earlier dismissed by the court.
The court also said in its unanimous judgement that the only different issue in Mr Obi's appeal, which is the allegation of the double nomination of Kashim Shettima as a vice-presidential candidate and a senatorial candidate in the February election, had been earlier resolved by the court and would not be allowed to be relitigated.
The judgement, coming immediately after the court's decision dismissing Atiku's appeal, brought the curtain down on the legal disputes over the validity of Mr Tinubu's election.
The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the relitigation of Vice President Kashim Shettima's double nomination issue.
"This court cannot allow the issue of candidate's double nomination to be relitigated in this court. There must be an end to litigation," Mr Okoro held.
He added that "this matter ought not to have come here. This appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed."
Lending his weight to the lead decision, a member of the court's panel, Tijjani Abubakar, said the issue had "nothing useful to add to the appeal."
In his contribution, Mohammed Garba said Mr Obi's grouse with the verdict of the presidential election court had been "comprehensively dealt with" in Atiku Abubakar's appeal.
"This appeal substantially canvasses same issues" in Atiku's appeal, Justice Garba said.
Other members of the panel, Uwani Abba-Aji, Adamu Jauro, Ibrahim Saulawa and Emmanuel Agim, while agreeing with the lead judgement, dismissed Mr Obi's suit for being unmeritorious.
Background
Mr Obi's lawyer, Chris Uche, argued fiercely at the presidential election court about Mr Tinubu's non-qualification to be declared president of Nigeria on account of his inability to secure 25 per cent votes in FCT as statutorily required.
The Labour Party presidential candidate, Mr Obi, had won a landslide in the FCT. Neither Atiku nor Mr Tinubu could garner the statutory votes in Abuja.
Consequently, Mr Obi had urged the court to either declare him president or order a rerun election due to Mr Tinubu's failure to poll 25 per cent of lawful votes in Abuja.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
However, ruling on the issue, on Thursday, Mr Okoro, who delivered the lead decision in Atiku's appeal, held that acceding to the Labour Party candidate's request would amount to a "narrow and selfish approach in interpreting the (Nigerian) constitution."
The court queried why a presidential candidate with the highest number of lawful votes in an election should be denied victory for not securing 25 per cent votes in Abuja.
Mr Okoro explained that the court is duty-bound to give "a holistic and broad interpretation to the constitution."
He said, "The legislature does not intend to create injustice or absurdity" by conferring a special status on residents of the FCT above Nigerians in other states of the country by insisting that a presidential candidate must secure 25 per cent of lawful votes in Abuja before been declared winner of an election.
On the issue of INEC's non-compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the 25 February election, the Supreme Court held that Mr Obi who came second in the race with 6.1 million votes did not prove that the allegation substantially affected the outcome of the election.
The court equally adopted its position in Atiku's appeal regarding INEC's failure to electronically transmit polling unit results in real-time to the IReV, in determining Mr Obi's contention on the issue, among others.
