…Peter Obi, Atiku Abubakar Want Tinubu’s Victory Voided

… Tinubu Says He Won Convincingly, Voiding Election Could Lead to Chaos

…Landmark Judgement on Requirement of 25% Score May Be the Game Changer

In a matter of weeks, Nigerians would know the true outcome of the February 25, 2023 presidential election when the Presidential Election Petition Court gives its judgement on the petitions before it, after resolving all the issues raised; based on technicalities, points of law and the constitution.

Just a step before the judgement; all is now set for the adoption of final addresses of Petitioners and respondents in the petitions filed by the Presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Mr. Peter Obi, his party,(LP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) against the victory of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima.

Issues before the Court include that of qualification of President Tinubu and his Vice, Kashim Shettima to contest the election and whether the duo on their joint ticket merited being declared winners of the presidential election. This is hinged on a section of the constitution that states that to be declared the winner of Nigeria’s presidential election, a candidate must also score 25 per cent of votes cast in two-thirds of the 36 states and the FCT. Two-thirds of the 36 states are 24.

While Peter Obi won the FCT by securing 58.85 percent, Tinubu scored about 18.99 percent and Atiku scored 15.5 percent. This made the petitioners ask the PEPC to either declare them the winner of the election or nullify it and order a rerun.

On Thursday , Mr Obi, LP’s standard bearer asked the Presidential Election Petition Court to void the election of President Bola Tinubu. Mr. Obi and his party had filed a joint petition in March challenging the outcome of the February 25 poll and asked the court to nullify Tinubu’s victory.

In their final written address dated July 20, the petitioners insisted that Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima were unqualified to contest the poll and also submitted that the forfeiture proceeding allegedly involving Tinubu in a US district court is sufficient to have him disqualified by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

But President Tinubu had responded that the $460,000 forfeiture was in a civil — not criminal — suit and since he was not convicted, he was eligible to contest the poll. However, the petitioners insisted that since the forfeiture followed an indictment for fraud, President Tinubu ought not to have contested the election.

“It is submitted that the order of forfeiture made against the 2nd respondent by the US court…constitutes a fine, and it is in respect of an offence involving dishonest or fraud by a court,… it is submitted that by the express meaning and intendment of Section 137 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution, a person who, even though not convicted, has forfeited property on account of criminal conduct should not aspire to or be allowed to occupy the exalted office of president of Nigeria.

“That is why the word “or” is used twice in section 137(1)(d) of the Constitution, meaning it carries a disjunctive meaning — to separate persons convicted from persons who, even though not sentenced, are affected by an order of a fine imposed by a Court – like the 2nd respondent in this petition”, the petitioners stressed.

Mr. Obi and his party also insisted that Vice President Shettima was guilty of double nomination. They argued that Vice President Shettima was nominated as President Tinubu’s vice-presidential candidate on July 14, 2022, while he was still the senatorial candidate for Borno central. They averred that despite a letter of withdrawal dated July 6, 2022, Vice President Shettima “signed INEC senatorial election notice of withdrawal of candidate form EC11C on July 15, 2022”.

On INEC Guidelines and scoring 25percent in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the petitioners citing the failure to transmit results in real-time, submitted that the election ran contrary to relevant provisions of the Electoral Act and INEC regulations. “The pertinent question is, how can an election result that lacks transparency, violates specific rules and regulations, palpably compromised, not susceptible to verification by the admitted technological platform introduced as an innovation for a transparent process, and contravenes clear constitutional provisions, be rightly described as accurate and or authentic,” the petitioners asked.

They also insisted that since President Tinubu failed to score 25 percent of the votes polled in the federal capital territory (FCT), he ought not to be returned as the winner of the poll. “It is submitted that a purposive reading of Section 134(2), Section 299 and the remainder provisions give us the conclusion that obtaining 25 percent votes in the FCT is an additional stand-alone requirement for election into the office of the president or the FCT is only a state, together with Nigeria’s 36 states, where the winning candidate must have obtained, at least 25 percent in two-thirds of all states (37 states),” the petitioners said.

“A literal reading of Section 134(2) of the Constitution gives the interpretation that a winning candidate must have 25 percent of total votes cast in two third of the states in the federation and the FCT, meaning that a winning candidate must obtain 25 percent in 24 states and in the FCT.” The petitioners prayed the court to uphold their arguments and grant all the reliefs sought.

Also on Thursday, the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Alhaji Atiku Abubakar asked the court to uphold the declaration of INEC that he (Abubakar) won 21 States in the February 25 presidential election.

Alhaji Abubakar made the request in his final address filed at the Presidential Election Petitions Court on July 20 in support of his joint petition with PDP seeking the nullification of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) declaration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as winner of the poll.

In the final address prepared by his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, Senior Advocate of Nigeria ( SAN), Alhaji Abubakar said that INEC’s assertion that he won in 21 States was neither disputed, retracted, debunked not claimed to be error through the proceedings of the Tribunal so far.

INEC had, in its response to Atiku’s petition, asserted that the PDP presidential candidate won 21 States of the Federation in the last presidential poll.

The 21 states listed by INEC as having been won by Alhaji Abubakar and PDP are Adamawa, Akwa Ibom. Bauchi. Bavelsa. Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina. Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe, and Zamfara.

The former Vice President said that since INEC which on its own averments claimed that he won states and did not rebut the assertion throughout the proceedings, the Tribunal should proceed to uphold the declaration.

The final written address read in part: “Very importantly, the 1st Respondent (INEC) who conducted the election made an open admission in paragraph 18 of its Reply to the Petition, where it unequivocally stated thus:

“The 1st Respondent further avers that in compliance with extant laws and regulations, it diligently discharged its duties when it collated the 1st Petitioner’s (Atiku) scores at the election which aggregates to 6,984,520 winning only 21 States to wit: Adamawa, Akwa Ibom. Bauchi. Bavelsa. Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina. Kebbi. Kogi. Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.”

“Indeed, as admitted by the 1st Respondent (INEC), the 1st Petitioner (Atiku) won in these 21 States. It is important to note that throughout the trial, the ist Respondent (INEC) neither refuted nor countermanded this critical averment nor denied it. We urge your Lordship to hold that this constitutes an admission that requires no further proof. It also constitutes an admission against interest.

“The 1st Petitioner (Atiku) contested election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the platform of the 2nd Petitioner, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which held on 25th February 2023, along with 17 other candidates, including the 2nd Respondent, (Tinubu) who was the candidate of the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), in whose favour the electoral body, the “Independent” National Electoral Commission (INEC) manipulated the technologies earlier put in place to ensure transparency, and wrongfully returned the said 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) as winner at about 4.00am on is March 2023, at a time the 1st Respondent admitted that substantial percentage of the results had not been transmitted to the collation system for verification as required by law.

“Under the cover of the so-called “technical glitch” excuse which the Respondent (INEC) never explained, the results were deliberately manipulated through suppression and discounting of the votes of the 1st Petitioner (Atiku) and inflation of the votes of the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu). “This deliberate bypass of the use of the prescribed verification technology was nationwide, and substantially affected the outcome of the election.

“The said 1st Respondent (INEC) equally proceeded to declare the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) winner when the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) did not meet the mandatory constitutional requirement to secure not less than a quarter of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. “This was in addition to the numerous infractions and corrupt practices perpetrated by the Respondents.

“Notwithstanding, the 1st Respondent (INEC) unequivocally and clearly admitted in its pleadings, namely paragraph 18 at page 13 of its Reply to the Petition, which was never refuted or nor retracted, that the Petitioners won 21 States of the Federation in the presidential election, which is an admission against interest.

“As a result of non-use of collation by electronic transmission, the 1st Respondent (INEC) later altered the admitted result of 21 States for the 1st Petitioner to 12 States,” Alhaji Abubakar, therefore, pleaded with the Tribunal to uphold the assertion of INEC in the process and declare him the winner of the February 25 Presidential Election, the final address said.

On their part, President Tinubu, Vice President Shettima and the All Progressives Congress final written addresses are captured on five planks. One, Mr. Obi’s petition is “very novel” in the sense that the said petition is not familiar to Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence.

Two, President Tinubu said he polled more than 25 percent of the total votes cast in 25 States of the federation including the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja) where he only managed to poll 20℅ of the total votes as against Obi’s 62% votes cast.

Three, that INEC’s failure to upload on IREV does not have impact on the election following the extant legal framework.

Four, President Tinubu said his running mate, Vice President Kashim Shettima had on July 6th ceased to be the senatorial candidate of APC for Borno Central Senatorial District while refuting allegations of double nomination levied against the latter.

Lastly, he added that the Court should dismiss the said petition for lacking in merit.

Specifically, Chief Wole Olanipekun said “the petition in issue in this address is very novel in the sense that it is not a petition stricto senso, familiar to our electoral jurisprudence, as the petitioners are not, this time around, complaining about election rigging, ballot box snatching, ballot box stuffing, violence, thuggery, vote buying, voters’ intimidation, disenfranchisement, interference by the military or the police, and such other electoral vices.

“The crux of their grouse this time around, is that while the presidential election was peacefully conducted all over the country (as corroborated by their primary witnesses) and the results accurately recorded in the various Form EC8As, some unidentified results were not uploaded electronically to the INEC Election Result Viewing ( I R E V ) Portal.

“The other remote contention of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent did not score 25% (or one-quarter) of the votes recorded in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT); while the petitioners have also alluded to the respondent’s non- qualification, without any fact known to law”.

Further in the address, the counsels contended that the “remote” contention of the petitioners that President Tinubu’s election should be cancelled for not scoring 25 percent or one-quarter of the votes recorded in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) is not backed by any law as the use of “and” in the constitution is conjunctive and not disjunctive.

“This case clearly cries to high heavens in vain to be fed with relevant and admissible evidence. The appellant woefully failed to realise that judges do not act like the oracles of life, which is often engaged in crystal gazing and thereafter would proclaim a new oba in succession to a deceased oba.

“Judges cannot perform miracles in the handling of civil claims, and at least of all manufacture evidence for the purpose of assisting a plaintiff win his case.”

Chief Olanipekun also trashed Mr. Obi’s claim that Tinubu should not have stood for the election because of his forfeiture of some money to the US government in 1993.

While Obi’s lead counsel had claimed it was a criminal forfeiture, President Tinubu’s lead counsel countered that it was a civil case, in which Tinubu was not convicted.