The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), in a landmark judgement dismissed the petitions of Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP).
The PEPC also dismissed the petitions of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
A five-man panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani presided over Obi’s petition and delivered judgement.
Here are things to note about the judgement delivered on September 6.2023.
Obi absent in court
Peter Obi, the LP’s presidential candidate was conspicuously absent on the day the judgement was delivered.
When Justice Haruna Tsammani, requested the introduction of petitioners and respondents at 9:34 a.m, LP’s chairman, Julius Abure stood for Mr. Obi.
Consequently, the court pronounced judgment in the petition marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 in Obi’s absence.
Court strikes out testimonies of 10 witnesses
The PEPC rejected the testimony of ten of the thirteen witnesses called by Peter Obi and the Labour Party.
The witnesses were presented to defend LP and Obi’s petition disputing the outcome of the 2023 presidential election.
The court ruled that it was an attempt to extend the petition’s amendment period beyond the legally permitted 21 days.
It, therefore, discarded all of the witnesses’ statements and struck out all of the papers they presented from the court’s records.
The court’s declared the witnesses testimonies as incompetent and in violation of clause 4 (5) (b) of the constitution.
The court only accepted the testimony of three witnesses out of the 13 presented.
The PEPC also dismissed Obi and LP’s accusation that president Bola Tinubu rigged the 2023 presidential election in his favour.
Read also: Tinubu cleared of U.S. drug charges by Tribunal
Obi’s allegation of Tinubu’s rigging not proven, court declares
The court ruled that they failed to prove their complaint that the election was marred by corrupt practices through credible evidence.
The court also held that Obi’s claim that the INEC recorded fraudulent results for President Tinubu and the APC was unproven.
Similarly, the court ruled that they failed to present the alleged manipulated results from election results in various states.
The states are; Ondo, Oyo, Rivers, Yobe, Borno, Tabara, Osun, and Lagos.
Hence, the court dismissed the petition’s paragraphs 9, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 83, and 89.
Obi, LP failed to establish Tinubu’s U.S conviction
The PEPC held that Obi and LP failed to prove that Tinubu was convicted of money laundering in the United States.
The five-member panel held that the petitioners established no record of criminal arrest or conviction against Tinubu.
The Tribunal determined that no criminal charges were brought against Tinubu in U.S and that he did not face a criminal prosecution there.
The Tribunal ruled that they failed to establish that the claim made before U.S District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, where the forfeiture occurred, constituted a criminal matter.
Tribunal says INEC has liberty to choose how result is uploaded
The panel noted that INEC could freely choose how to transmit the February 25 election results.
The panel declared that Sections 52 and 65 of the Electoral Act 2022 authorized INEC to specify the method of sending election result during the poll.
Hence, the panel denied the LP and Obi’s prayer seeking annulment of Tinubu’s victory based on the “failure” of INEC to upload election results electronically in real-time.
Tribunal dismiss Peter Obi’s failure to upload results argument
The Tribunal also held that INEC was free to decide how election results will be transmitted during the presidential election on February 25, 2023.
According to the panel, INEC was authorized to specify the method in which election results were sent during the polls under Sections 52 and 65 of the Electoral Act 2022.
As a result, the Tribunal denied the LP and Obi’s petition, which sought an annulment of Tinubu’s victory based on the “failure” of the commission’s Results Viewing Portal (IReV) to upload election results electronically in real time.
Tribunal dismiss Obi’s 25% FCT vote arguments
Concerning Tinubu’s inability to score 25% in the FCT, the tribunal dismissed the contention that INEC was incorrect in proclaiming Tinubu the winner notwithstanding his failure to score 25% in the FCT.
The panel differentiated between statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation, noting that a prologue to the 1999 constitution said that all citizens are equal, with no one superior or inferior to another even by vote.
Tsammani pointed out that the petitioners relied on a fruitless and restricted reading of section 134 of the Constitution.
He said the petitioners assumed that the votes cast in Abuja are more valuable than those cast in other states.
Explaining the word “and” as used in Section 134, the tribunal held that the FCT shall be treated “as if it were one of the states of the federation.”
He added that the FCT shall be counted as one of the two-thirds of the states of the federation.
