Tribunal Delivers Judgement in Atiku, Obi’s Petitions against Tinubu Tomorrow

Alex Enumah and Chuks Okocha in Abuja

Exactly one month and four days after it concluded hearing in two separate petitions filed by presidential the candidate of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, and that of Labour Party (LP), Mr Peter Obi, challenging the declaration of Senator Bola Tinubu as President, the Presidential Election Petition Court will tomorrow make known its findings on the matter. This was confirmed yesterday morning by Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Mr Umar Bangari.

Recall that the five-member panel of the Presidential Election Petition Court, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, had on August 1 announced that the date for judgement in the two petitions would be communicated to parties, shortly after all parties adopted their final written addresses for and against the petitions.

Besides the petitions of Atiku and Obi, the presidential tribunal would also deliver judgement in the petition by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) seeking the disqualification of Tinubu from the February 25 presidential election on account of alleged unlawful nomination of the vice presidential candidate, Senator Kashim Shettima.

Confirming the judgement date to our correspondent in Abuja, Bangari also assured that adequate security had been put in place, adding that only invited members of the political parties and the general public would be allowed into the courtroom to avoid congestion and security breaches.

In addition, Bangari stated that media houses interested in broadcasting the proceedings live at no cost to the court were welcomed.

Both Atiku and Obi, in their respective petitions, are claiming victory in the February 25 presidential poll, won by Tinubu of All Progressives Congress (APC).

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Tinubu winner of the presidential election, on the grounds that he won majority of the lawful votes cast at the polls.

INEC said Tinubu polled a total of 8,794,726 votes to emerge victorious. He was closely followed by Atiku, with 6,984,520 votes, and Obi, with 6,101,533 votes.

Displeased with the declaration, Atiku and Obi had approached the court to argue and prove that Tinubu did not win majority of lawful votes as claimed by the electoral umpire. They submitted that as at the time INEC chairman, Mahmood Yakuku, announced Tinubu as winner, collation was ongoing, since many of the presidential election results were yet to be uploaded unto the INEC’s Results Viewing (IReV) Portals.

They also accused INEC of manipulating the process to favour the ruling APC and Tinubu.

Besides the grounds of substantial non-compliance upon which the petitioners are seeking the nullification of the presidential poll, others are that INEC violated the law when it declared Tinubu, who did not score 25 per cent of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), as winner.

In addition, the petitioners claimed that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the presidential election on account of alleged forfeiture of $460,000 to the United States of America over alleged complicity in drug related offences.

At last proceedings, the respondents who adopted their final addresses, first, urged the court to dismiss the two petitions for lacking in merit. They alleged that the petitioners failed to prove allegations contained in their separate petitions.

INEC, which conducted the disputed February 25 presidential election, in adopting his final address as its brief of argument against the petitions, observed that the case of the petitioners was based on the misconception that the Electoral Act, 2022, provided for electronic collation of results. 

INEC’s lawyer, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, maintained that collation of results remained manual, adding that the introduction of the INEC’s Results Viewing (IReV) Portals was to enhance the credibility of the election but that “collation remained manual throughout the election”.

The senior lawyer specifically told the panel that, “IReV is simply for public view not part of the collation system”.

Similarly, the electoral umpire argued that the 18,088 blurred results sheets tendered by Obi and LP to prove corrupt practices did not in any way suggest that the original copies were also blurred “and we do not know why they are blurred”.

Yakubu noted that while parties agreed that a glitch occurred during the transmission of the results using the Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) to the IReV, they disagreed with the petitioners that the glitch was deliberate and aimed at manipulating the process in favour of the second respondent.

Tinubu, through his lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, also argued along the submission by INEC that the IReV was never a part of the collation process. He also submitted that the petitioners did not show how the failure to transmit results real time with the IReV affected the results accrued to the parties.

Like INEC, Tinubu insisted that the failure of Tinubu to score 25 per cent of votes in the FCT could not invalidate the election. It added that even if the court thought otherwise and ordered for a rerun, such a rerun could only be between Tinubu and Atiku, as the law already bars Obi, on the grounds that he did not come second in the poll.

On its part, APC, represented by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, urged the court to discountenance the evidence of petitioners’ witnesses on the grounds that pleadings were not linked with evidence. Fagbemi added that the petitioners merely dumped documents on the court without anyone speaking to the documents.

Fagbemi submitted that there was no part of the petition that had not received judicial pronouncement or resolution by the courts. He claimed that on the issue of mandatory requirement for the uploading of results through the IReV, the Supreme Court, in a judgement, had settled the matter in the case of Oyetola and Adeleke.

Fagbemi further cited other judgements of courts, which held that INEC had discretion to adopt any mode of transmission/ transfer of election results.

On the issue of Tinubu’s forfeiture of $460,000 to the United States of America on account of narcotics trafficking and money laundering, the APC counsel pointed out that the issue was not a ground for disqualification. He said the incident occurred over 30 years ago, adding that the country’s constitution provides that in such event the person is forgiven after 10 years of the alleged offence.

However, both Atiku and Obi disagreed with the submissions of the respondents in their separate final addresses.

In adopting his final written address, Atiku, through his lead lawyer, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, urged the panel to keep to its promise to deliver “substantial justice and not technical justice” in their petition. He added that they had fully established allegations raised in their petition through the testimonies of witnesses called as well as the plethora of documents tendered.

Atiku challenged the panel to break the jinx of presidential elections having never been nullified by using the case at hand to set precedent.

Uche claimed that through documentary evidence and testimonies of witnesses it was proven that the Electoral Act, 2022, was aimed at uprooting the issue of manipulation that usually occurred during collation.

He said the petitioners agreed that the IReV technology was deployed when they admitted that there was a glitch in the transmission of the presidential election results.

“The substantiality of the non-compliance was nationwide,” he said when arguing that the said glitch was as a result of human interference.

While urging the court to consider the report of the European Union Observer Mission on the general elections, Uche noted that if the court must do justice in the petition it should not dwell on technicalities but keep to its promise towards substantial justice.

In calling for the nullification of Tinubu’s election, Uche submitted that, the fact that the precedent had not been created does not mean it cannot….let that precedent be created in this case”.

Similarly, Obi through his lead counsel, Dr Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, observed that the respondents only laboured in vain by trying to degrade the importance of IReV, when the Supreme Court had already settled the fact that IREV is part of the electoral process.

Uzoukwu further claimed that Tinubu’s sole witness, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, also attested to the importance of IReV in the electoral process.

Besides, Uzoukwu claimed that INEC manipulated the election results and that was why it could not produce in court the original of the blurred copies of results sheets it certified for the petitioners.

Presidential Petition; Labour Party Express Confidence of Victory

Ahead of Wednesday judgement by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, the Labour Party has expressed confidence that it’s presidential candidate, Peter Obi will be declared the President.

In a statement monday night, the National Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party, Obiora Ifoh said,  “We are positive that the judgement will favour the Labour Party and our presidential candidate, Peter Obi.

“We are also positive that the will of the people will prevail. Most Nigerians have waited this long and their wishes will be granted. The mandate freely expressed on February 25 will be returned to the rightful winner of the election.”

The much-anticipated verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPT) is expected to be delivered on Wednesday, September 6th.

Presidential Petition; Labour Party Says Confident of Victory

Ahead of Wednesday’s judgement by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, the Labour Party (LP) said it was confident that its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, would be declared President.

In a statement Monday night, National Publicity Secretary of LP, Obiora Ifoh, said, “We are positive that the judgement will favour the Labour Party and our presidential candidate, Peter Obi.

“We are also positive that the will of the people will prevail. Most Nigerians have waited this long and their wishes will be granted. The mandate freely expressed on February 25 will be returned to the rightful winner of the election.”

The much-anticipated verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPT) is expected to be delivered on Wednesday, September 6.