Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party's (PDP) vehement presidential candidate in the most recent election, has vehemently disagreed with the ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT).

According to The Daily Post, PEPT on Wednesday dismissed the petition that Atiku and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) had submitted to challenge the election victory of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) on February 25.

The tribunal upheld Tinubu's election after finding that the petitions filed by the candidates and their parties lacked merit.

Justice Haruna Tsammani, the tribunal's chairman, delivered the decision with assistance from the other judges on the panel—justices Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Stephen Adah, Moses Ugo, and Abba Mohammed.

Reacting, Atiku, in a press conference in Abuja on Thursday, rejected the verdict, saying the battle to upturn Tinubu’s victory continues.

The former Vice President, who called himself a fighter, said he had instructed his legal team to file an appeal at the Supreme Court.

He said, “I am here today to give my official reaction to the judgment delivered yesterday by the Presidential Election Petition Court on the 2023 presidential elections.

“As you already know, I approached the court following the declaration by the INEC that the APC and its candidate are the winners of the February 25 elections. My decision to go to court was anchored in my belief that the court is the sanctuary of justice.

“Indeed, I am no stranger to legal battles. I can say that I have a fair idea of how the court system works. All through my career as a politician, I have been a fighter, and I will continue to fight.

“Our aim of conducting credible elections in the country was compromised by INEC through the way it managed the presidential election.

“I am afraid that the judgment of the PEPT yesterday failed to restore confidence in our dream of free and fair elections devoid of human manipulation.

“I am here to tell you that though the judgment of the court yesterday is respected, it is a judgment that I refused to accept.

“I refuse to accept it because I believe it is devoid of substantial justice. I have asked my lawyers to constitutionally activate the guaranteed right to appeal in the higher court.”