The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Peter Obi, have advised their lawyers to go on appeal at the Supreme Court after rejecting yesterday’s judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal affirming the election of President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The Legal Adviser to the Labour Party, Kehinde Edun, vowed to challenge the judgment at the Supreme Court even as the Atiku’s Lead Counsel, Chris Uche (SAN), said that he had received instructions from his client to file an appeal at the Supreme Court.
“The judgment has been delivered but we have not received justice. Luckily, the law has given us leverage to go on appeal to the Supreme Court. “We have instructions from our clients to go to the Supreme Court. The struggle continues.”
The Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) which began sitting at 9.40am at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, yesterday, September 6, ruled that the petition filed by Atiku and Obi and their parties had no merit and unanimously upheld Tinubu’s electoral victory in the February 25 presidential election.
The Tribunal said that the petitioners were unable to state the figures they claimed were reduced from the election results they garnered in different states of the federation, especially in Ondo, Oyo, Rivers, Yobe, Borno, Tabara, Osun and Lagos States.
It said that the petitioners equally failed to state the polling units where over-voting occurred or the exact figures of unlawful votes that were credited to Tinubu by the INEC.
It stressed that though Obi and LP said they would rely on spreadsheets as well as forensic reports and expert analysis of their expert witnesses, they failed to attach the documents to the petition or serve the same on the respondents as required by the law.
The Tribunal said that though the petition contained serious allegations that bordered on violence, non-voting, suppression of votes, fictitious entry of election results and corrupt practices, Obi and his party, however, failed to give particulars of specific polling units where the incidents took place.
It held that several portions of the petition that contained the allegations were “vague, imprecise, nebulous and bereft of particular materials.”
Therefore, the court struck out paragraphs 9, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 83 and 89 of the petition.
“They failed to state the number of votes affected and the number of people disenfranchised. The determination of the election is about figures,” Justice Mohammed declared.
He said: “It is unimaginable that a petitioner will allege widespread rigging in 176,000 polling units, over 8,000 wards, 774 LGAs, 36 states and FCT without stating the specific place where the alleged irregularities occur.
“The law is very clear that where someone alleged irregularities in a particular polling unit, such person must prove the particular irregularities in that polling unit for him to succeed in his petition.
“Labour Party made generic allegations of irregularities and said they would rely on spreadsheets, inspection reports, and forensic analysis but the documents promised by the petitioners were not attached to the petition.”
Obi nomination validated
Nevertheless, the court dismissed the contention of the respondents – Tinubu and the APC- that Obi was not validly nominated by the LP to contest the presidential election.
It noted that the respondents had argued that Obi left the PDP on May 24, 2022 and joined the LP on May 27, 2022.
The respondents in its petition claimed that as of May 30, 2022, Obi was not a valid member of the LP and could not have duly participated in its presidential primary election.
“By the provision of section 52 and section 65 of the Electoral Act, INEC is at liberty to prescribe the manner in which results can be transmitted. INEC cannot be compelled to electronically transmit results,” the court held.
The tribunal rejected the European Union Election Observers Mission report on the February 25 presidential election on by Peter Obi and the Labour Party.
The court said it rejected the report on the grounds that it was not tendered by an official of the body which is the author and has custody of the document.
The tribunal similarly dismissed allegations of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 filed against Tinubu’s election by Atiku and the PDP.
Justice Adah said the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the election did not comply with the provisions of sections 134 and 135 of the Electoral Act.
He said, “There has to be sufficient grounds before the petitioners can establish that there was no substantial compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the election. The petitioners have in their petitions, listed some of the facts relating to their complaints of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022.
‘’The key facts are in paragraphs 18, 22, 23,, 25, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40-44, 46 and 48 of the petition. The respondents have issues with the petitioners in respect of this issue and they all denied the facts pleaded by the petitioners.
“And 135 (1) says: “An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non – compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.”
That said, Justice Adah further held that “This ground of non – compliance with the Electoral Act has been in all our election laws even when we had a parliamentary system of government.”
Adah, who read the ruling on objections against the petition, expunged several documents tendered by Atiku on the grounds that the exhibits were made during the pendency of the petition.⁣
The tribunal equally expunged from the court’s records several key witnesses presented by Atiku for having been made in manners not known to law.⁣
It held that the wrongful mode adopted by the Adamawa – born presidential candidate in the construction of the petition made several paragraphs liable for expunging due to lack of merit.⁣
The court went further to strike out some portions of the reply filed by Atiku and his party, including the part where they accused Tinubu of having dual citizenship.
It also rejected the aspect where the petitioners claimed Tinubu was not qualified on the grounds of alleged criminal conviction and criminal forfeiture in the US.
The panel recalled that the petitioner made grievous allegations against Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State and the Chairman of Olamaboro Local Government Area of Kogi, Friday Adejoh, but he neglected to join them as respondents in his petition.⁣
Justice Ugoh held that the failure to join the governor who was accused of electoral fraud obstructed the petition because the governor was denied the opportunity to defend himself as required by law.⁣
Therefore, the justice dismissed the allegations of over-voting nationwide by the petitioner saying that such pleadings run foul of the law because he failed to mention the specific locations where the alleged over-voting took place.⁣
Atiku’s petition was also faulted for introducing several facts and allegations in unlawful ways that caught the respondents unaware, adding that the tactic employed was unfair and made him clever by half.⁣
Amongst the new facts he was said to have wrongfully introduced were the allegations of certificate forgery, criminal conviction, and dual citizenship of Guinea made against Tinubu outside the mode of filing a petition.⁣
The tribunal had commenced the day’s proceedings by dismissing the petition by the Allied Peoples Movement challenging the qualification of Vice President Kashim Shettima.
“Nigerians were witnesses to the electoral robbery that took place on February 25, 2023, which was globally condemned but the Tribunal in its wisdom refused to accept the obvious. What is at stake is democracy and we will not relent until the people will prevail.
‘’Details of the party’s position will be presented after consultation with our lawyers after the Certified True Copy of the judgment is made available to us.”
Meanwhile, President Tinubu has assured Nigerians of his renewed and energised focus on delivering his vision of a unified, peaceful and prosperous nation, following the judgment by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja.
“President Tinubu welcomes the judgment of the Tribunal with an intense sense of solemn responsibility and preparedness to serve all Nigerians, irrespective of all diverse political persuasions, faiths, and tribal identities,” the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Ajuri Ngelale, said in a statement.
The President said that he recognised the diligence, undaunted thoroughness, and professionalism of the five-member bench in interpreting the law.
He said that the principles of presumption of regularity of elections and substantial conformity made it extremely difficult to prosecute election petitions successfully.
The founder of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Chief Chekwas Okorie, expressed satisfaction with the ruling which upheld Tinubu’s electoral victory.
He said: “I am not surprised at the outcome of the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal. Rather than prove a case of substantial non – compliance with the electoral law, they (petitioners) seemed to have relied on scoring technical points to win their petitions. Their strategy failed.’’
Source: Opshot media.

Here are some interesting points addressed and resolved today, September 6, at the Presidential Election Petition Court sitting in Abuja, Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory (FCT)

11:05 am
Court Strikes Out APM’s Suit Against Shettima, Tinubu.

11:26 am
The Presidential Election Petitions Court went on a 15-minute break.

11:47 am
The Court reconvened to take the Judgement of the Labour Party. The judgement is read by Justice Abba Mohammed. He read the preambles reliefs and prayers sought.

11:50 am
A member of the panel of justices, Abba Mohammed, read the ruling on the preliminary objections filed by the respondents against Peter Obi’s petition.

12:07 p.m
LP’s Widespread Irregularities Claim Generic – Court:
While highlighting a claim by the respondents that Obi’s petition only alleged that there were widespread irregularities without giving the particulars and the polling units.
Justice Abba Mohammed holds that In a presidential election held in 176,866 polling units in 774 Local Government Areas, it would be improper not to specify where there were irregularities.
According to him, the petitioners only made generic allegations.
“Pleading must set out material facts and particulars. In the instant petition, there was no effort to prove specific allegations, particulars of complaints,” said the Tribunal.
The law is clear that where someone alleges irregularities in a particular polling unit, such person must prove the particular irregularities in that polling unit before that petition can succeed, the Tribunal added.
The court said the petitioners did not prove the particular polling unit where the election did not take place nor did they specify particulars of polling units where there are alleged complainants of irregularities.
“It was only in one instance that figures were given of alleged suppressed votes and we all know that elections are about figures,” it said.
“LP alleged that INEC reduced their scores and added it to APC votes but failed to supply particulars of what they actually scored before the said reductions, neither did they supply the polling units where it happened….”

12:31 pm
Tribunal Declares APC’s Petition On Obi’s Membership Incompetent
The Court also declared APC’s petition challenging Obi’s membership of the LP as incompetent. Justice Abba said that membership in a political party is an internal affair.
The Tribunal also touched on the issue of non-joinder of Atiku Abubakar who came second and wondered how Obi & LP’s petition could be effectively determined without joining the candidate who placed second in the polls.

1:28 pm
The court rejected the reports of forensic analyses tendered by LP’s three witnesses. According to the court, they are either made during the pendency of the case or by an interested party.
This was as it rejected the European Union report on the polls, arguing that it was not tendered by an official of the body.

02:12 pm
Tribunal dismisses LP/Obi’s Petition on 25 per cent needed in the FCT to win the presidential election.
According to the court, FCT residents have no special privileges as the petitioners claimed.

02: 26
Obi, LP Failed To Prove Tinubu Was Convicted In US, Tribunal Rules.
The Court ruled that the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, failed to prove that President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was convicted for money laundering in the United States.
The five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani ruled that no record of criminal arrest or conviction was established against Tinubu by the petitioners – Obi and the LP.

02: 41 pm
INEC At Liberty To Define Mode Of Transmitting Election Results –
On the issue of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the law, especially with regard to non-transmission of result sheets to INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), the court held that there is no law that says INEC must transfer or transmit the results of the election from the polling units electronically.
The law simply empowers INEC to decide the means of collation of results of elections, the court argued.

3:08 pm
The court added that the only device that must be used by INEC for elections is the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) and noted that there’s no regulation showing BVAS must be used to electronically transmit results from polling units.

3:12 pm
According to the PEPC, INEC regulations and the Electoral Act give room for manual collation of results. It said electronic transmission is optional at best.
Summary of the judgement so far:
1. Interested parties testimonies are not admissible.
2. Tinunbu’s qualification not in doubt.
3. His right of ingress and egress into the United States of America is suggestive of the fact that no criminal record is against him.
4. Shetima’s nomination settled as party’s internal matter.
5. LP couldn’t prove malpractices as alleged
6. LP didn’t show with how much vote it won the election.
7. Inability of INEC to transmit election in real time, does not depart from substantial compliance
8. Obi’s nomination by LP is an internal party issue
9. Abuja does not enjoy special status to other states so no 2/3 votes required for a candidate to win compulsorily in Abuja
10. Shettima alleged double nomination lack merit. Nomination is an internal party affairs.

The Kogi State Election Petition Tribunal has nullified the victory of Abubakar Ohere of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as Senator representing the Kogi Central senatorial election and declared Natasha Akpoti-Uduagan of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as the actual winner of the February senatorial election.
The Tribunal Chairman, Justice K. A. Orjiako, who read the unanimous judgement of the three-man panel, said that Ohere results were inflated in nine polling units of Ajaokuta Local Government Area (LGA) while that of Natasha was intentionally reduced in the areas by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as well as three other polling units result that was deliberately not entered for Natasha in the same LGA.
The tribunal, after making the proper correction, declared Natasha as the winner of the poll, having polled 54,074 against Ohere (APC) who polled 51,291.

The Presidential Petition Election Tribunal has ruled that the Allied Peoples Movement (APM’s) petition challenging qualification of Vice President Kashim Shettima of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was a pre-election matter.
Justice Haruna Tsammani, who led a five-member panel gave the ruling today, September 6 in Abuja.
Recall that the APM challenged the qualification of the Vice president, Kashim Shettima among others.
Reading his verdict, Justice Tsammani said that the matter ought to have been challenged before the conduct of the presidential election.
“The issue of qualification or disqualification is a constitutional one. The issue of disqualification or qualification is a pre-election matter.
“It must be determined before the conduct of the election. This court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter and even if it does, it is status-barred because it is a pre-election matter.”
Justice Tsammani said that the judgements would be delivered separately on the petition.
“We will deliver judgements on the petitions separately. The petition, number four will be treated first.”