Atiku had alleged dual citizenship and a drug conviction against President Bola Tinubu, challenging his eligibility to contest the February 25 presidential election.
Justice Moses Ugo presided over the judgment, addressing the objections raised by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Tinubu regarding Atiku's claims.
The central issue at hand was whether Atiku and the PDP could introduce new issues, such as those related to non-qualification, which were not initially pleaded in their petition.
Justice Ugo upheld the objections put forth by the APC and President Tinubu. He ruled that Atiku's claims regarding dual citizenship and drug conviction constituted new issues that had not been included in their original petition. As a result, these claims were deemed inadmissible.
Atiku's assertions were multifaceted. First, he contended that President Tinubu was constitutionally disabled from running for the presidency due to his involvement in a compromise agreement related to a narcotics-related crime, involving the forfeiture of $460,000 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division.
Second, Atiku alleged that President Tinubu had not disclosed his dual citizenship in his form EC9. According to Atiku, President Tinubu held citizenship in both Nigeria and Guinea, having voluntarily acquired Guinean citizenship.
The court's decision, while reinforcing the importance of adhering to the legal procedures and requirements surrounding election petitions, also underscores the significance of providing evidence and arguments that are in line with the original petition.