The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for Monday, October 23, regarding appeals brought by Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, who were presidential candidates for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP)as well as the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
These appeals challenge the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) issued on September 6, which dismissed their petitions on the grounds of lacking merit and failing to substantiate their cases.
The impending Supreme Court hearing signals a crucial juncture in the legal battle over the outcome of the February 25 presidential election, in which President Bola Tinubu emerged.
Background
The PEPC’s consolidated judgment declared the petitions by PDP, LP, and the APM, along with their candidates, as unmeritorious and lacking in merit.
The PEPC justified its decision on the grounds that the petitioners failed to establish their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.
Atiku and the PDP presented a 35-ground appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the judgment of the PEPC as it relates to their petition.
Atiku’s party maintains that the PEPC’s verdict is against the weight of evidence, particularly concerning the mandatory electronic transmission of results, a crucial aspect of the Electoral Act 2022, aimed at enhancing transparency and integrity of election outcomes.
Peter Obi and the LP lodged a 51-ground appeal, pursuing similar relief.
They raise concerns about the PEPC’s interpretation of the law and its treatment of the evidence they presented, including aspects related to electoral malpractices.
The APM filed a 10-ground appeal, with its primary aim being to invalidate President Tinubu’s election.
The party contends that the PEPC erred in law when dismissing its case against Tinubu’s election.
They particularly emphasize issues regarding the valid nomination of Tinubu’s running mate, Senator Kashim Shettima.
The appellants raised multiple contentions in their appeals, particularly targeting the PEPC’s interpretation of the law and its treatment of the evidence presented.
The appellants assert that the PEPC failed to recognize the mandatory electronic transmission of results, which is a pivotal aspect of the Electoral Act 2022, aimed at enhancing the transparency and integrity of election outcomes.
According to them, the use of technology in election processes, including result transmission and collation, is vulnerable to manipulation and compromise if not correctly implemented.
Additionally, the appellants challenge the PEPC’s findings on various legal matters, including the requirements for the announcement of the presidential election results, as outlined in the Electoral Act 2022.
Statements from the Appellants
In ground two, the appellants argued that the PEPC erred when, despite the clear provisions of enabling statutes, including the constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, the Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections, and the Manual for Election Officials, it still proceeded to hold that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) was not meant to be used to electronically transmit or transfer the results of the polling unit direct to the collation system.
They also faulted the PEPC for holding that the INEC Result Viewing portal (IRev) was not a collation system.
The appellants additionally criticized the PEPC for holding that the requirement of electronic transmission of the result of the election directly from the polling units to the INEC collation system is not a requirement of the Electoral Act 2022.
According to them, the PEPC erred in law when it failed to determine the case of the appellants with respect to the mandatory verifications and confirmations required before the announcement of the result of the presidential election, pursuant to Section 64(4) of the Electoral Act 2022.
They also faulted the PEPC for failing to nullify the presidential election on the ground of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022.
The PDP and Atiku contend that the PEPC “erred in law when it refused to uphold the mandatory electronic transmission of results for confirmation and verification of final results introduced by the Electoral Act 2022 for transparency and integrity of results.”
They argue that the PEPC erred in law when it held that the INEC Result Viewing portal (IRev) was not a collation system.
Peter Obi and the LP maintain that the PEPC erred in law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when they held that the onus was on them to prove that INEC failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 73(2) of the Electoral Act 2022 in the conduct of the presidential election.
The APM contends that the PEPC erred in law “when it wrongfully waved aside the allegation that Tinubu’s running mate and Vice President, Kashim Shettima, was nominated twice for different positions by the APC, in relation to the 2023 general elections.
The party argues that it was wrong for the PEPC to dismiss its case against Tinubu’s election on the premise that it was not only incompetent but contained pre-election issues.