The Presidential Election Petitions Court has set Wednesday for the announcement of its decision, and interested parties in the February 25 presidential election have expressed optimism that they will receive a favorable ruling.
Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Chichi Ojei, and other presidential candidates from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), and Allied Peoples Movement (APM), filed petitions to overturn the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) declaration of President Bola Tinubu as the election’s victor.
In a statement yesterday, the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Umar Bangari, Esq., revealed that the five-member panel, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, had also ordered that media access to the session would strictly be on accreditation.
According to the statement, the panel also permitted live streaming of the three petitions’ proceedings in order to encourage openness and transparency.
N/Assembly withheld nearly N650 million for a road project; Umahi NAFDAC opposes using carbide to speed up fruit ripening
The courtroom will only be open to accredited visitors, such as attorneys and party officials. The public should watch the events on television if they are interested, the panel said.
The Department of State Services (DSS) had earlier issued a warning against engaging in violent protests in response to the verdict in the case.
The problems
Through their attorney Chris Uche (SAN), Atiku and the PDP argued that Tinubu was ineligible to run for office because he had submitted “forged certificates,” including those from Chicago State University and the NYSC certificate bearing the name “Adekunle.”
The main opposition party and its candidate claimed that Tinubu violated Section 137(i)(d) of the Nigerian Constitution by receiving a $460,000 fine for drug and narcotic-related offenses in the Northern District Court of Illinois, USA, in 1993. They also claimed that he failed to disclose his dual citizenship with Guinea on INEC form EC9, which is required by law.
They further argued that Tinubu was not duly nominated because he had previously run for the Borno Central Senatorial District before becoming the vice presidential candidate, in violation of Section 134(2)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution, and that he did not receive 25% of the total votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory.
They claim that despite spending N355 billion on it, the election was marked by anomalies and corrupt behavior, such as the failure to comply with the Electoral Act regarding the direct upload of results from the polling places.
Through their lead attorney, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), Obi and LP claimed in their petitions that Tinubu was ineligible for the office of senator because Kashim Shettima, who was nominated as the APC candidate for the position and remained so until July 15, 2022, when he was formally replaced, had been nominated in more than one constituency during the same election cycle, in violation of Section 35 of the Electoral Act of 2022.
Additionally, they argued that forfeiting $460,000 was equivalent to paying a fine under the terms of the US constitution and other Supreme Court rulings.
With 18,088 polling units and 2.55 million votes cast, Obi claimed that the failure to upload the election results from the BVAS machines to IREV led to muddled results from INEC. He asserted that he was the only candidate to have received the majority of legitimate votes cast and the 25% threshold required in the FCT under Section 134(2) of the Nigerian Constitution.
APM and Ojei’s lead attorney, Yakubu Maikasuwa (SAN), argued that Tinubu and Shettima were not legitimately nominated to run in the February 25 election in their lone complaint before the tribunal. They contend that they are invalid because of how Section 133 of the Electoral Act and Sections 131(c) and 142(2) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution were read together.
They argued that the period from the time Kabiru Masari announced his withdrawal as an APC stand-in on June 24, 2022, to the time Shettima’s name was sent to INEC on July 14, 2022, was 21 days, in violation of Section 33 of the Electoral Act of 2022, which allows for a period of 14 days for the replacement of a candidate for an election.
Through its lead attorney, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), INEC urged the court to reject the petitioners’ claims in their responses, claiming that the Supreme Court had already ruled on APM’s appeal on May 26.
Atiku and Obi, according to INEC, failed to demonstrate that the law permitted electronic results collation. He claimed that they fell short of refuting their claim that technical difficulties with the Amazon Website Service (AWS) prevented the upload of the results.
In contrast, Tinubu requested the court to dismiss the petitions because they lacked the evidence necessary to support the accusations they presented to the court through his main attorney, Wole Olanipekun (SAN).
He requested that the court rule that Tinubu received 25% of the two-thirds of the votes cast in the FCT and had the necessary numbers, according to how the courts interpreted those numbers in Shagari v. Awolowo in 1979. He also argued that the constitution’s intent was not to create a special state out of the FCT, but rather to make it the 37th state of the federation.
Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), the APC’s attorney, also requested that the court dismiss the petitions because they were unfounded.
The All Progressives Congress (APC), which is now in power, has, however, expressed confidence that the tribunal will declare President Tinubu the victor of the upcoming election.
Barrister Felix Morka, the APC’s national publicity secretary, stated to Daily Trust yesterday that the party only expects confirmation of Tinubu’s victory. “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu won the most recent presidential election fairly and without contest,” he remarked.
“We are optimistic that the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal will uphold the majority of Nigerian voters’ decision to give President Tinubu his support,”
Nothing else is acceptable to us, says Atiku.
Atiku, a PDP candidate, has asserted that the 1999 Constitution as modified should serve as the basis for the decision.
He stated that he does not anticipate anything other than that justice in the petition be carried out in accordance with the terms of the 1999 constitution and the Electoral Act 2022.
Former vice president Atiku told Daily Trust through his media adviser, Mr. Paul Ibe, in response to the announcement that Wednesday would serve as the day of judgment, “We expect that the PEPT will render justice in accordance with the 1999 constitution as amended and all other bodies of law that guided the election.”
While attempting to reach the PDP’s national leadership for comment, he was unable because Hon. Debo Ologunagba, the party’s national publicity secretary, would not return his calls or reply to a text message sent to him as of the time this story was filed.
Votes, not a tribunal, will determine the outcome – LP
The Labour Party (LP) responded by expressing confidence that the verdict will be favorable tomorrow.
Mr. Obiora Ifoh, the party’s national publicity secretary, told Daily Trust that he was confident that the verdict would be in the party’s favor and that the tribunal would grant all of the requests made by Nigerians.
Additionally, the Connected Development (CODE) has urged Nigerians, particularly the youth, to uphold the law and let the legal system play out.
At the official presentation of the “Uzabe: Nigeria Decides Citizen Led Election Report” yesterday in Abuja, Mallam Hamzat Lawal, the executive director of CODE, made this statement.
“To me, everything is quiet, there is no stress, and there is no reason to be alarmed,” he declared. People who felt wronged went to court in 2011, 2015, and 2019, and nothing will have changed in 2023.
“One expects that we will have a process free from political interference; a process that is anticipated to be credible and transparent so that we may have a situation where the vote instead of the judges would make pronouncements. I have faith in the legal system, and we will support the procedure moving forward.
-
Panel of the presidential tribunal cautions against spectacular remarks
May 8, 202
