• Refuses Atiku, Obi’s prayers on all counts in all-day judgment  • Rules winning 25% FCT votes not compulsory  • Coalition urges PDP, LP to accept judgment

 

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and Mr. Peter Obi of the Peoples Democratic Party and the Labour Party (LP), respectively as well as the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), yesterday, failed to dethrone President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

In a judgment that began at 9am and lasted well into the night, Justice Haruna Tsammani, who led four other members of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) dismissed the petitions for being grossly incompetent.

The first casualty was the APM petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023. The petitioner had argued that the withdrawal of Mr. Masari, who was initially nominated as the vice presidential candidate of the APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution.

The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.

It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

But the court held that the issue of double nomination as canvassed by the APM, was not a constitutional ground for disqualification.

•Obi failed to prove claims

Chairman of the panel, Justice Tsammani in his lead judgment held that Obi and his party failed to establish their allegations that the election that produced Tinubu was marred by substantial irregularities, non-compliance to the extant electoral laws and corrupt acts.

Although the petitioners had called 13 witnesses to prove their case, the tribunal in its judgment knocked out the evidence of 10 witnesses on the grounds that their statements on oath were not front-loaded alongside the petition.

This he held, was contrary to sections 85 (5); 137 of the Electoral Act; and paragraph 4 (5) (6) and 14 (2), governing the filing of election petition.

The court held that every witness statement of oath filed outside the 21 days period provided by law is deemed incompetent in line with the provisions of sections 85 (5); 137 of the Electoral Act; and paragraph 4 (5) (6) and 14 (2), governing the filing of election petition.

The court further struck out the exhibits tendered by the affected witnesses as incompetent.

Justice Tsammani held that the evidence led by the remaining three witnesses were not substantial enough to affect the outcome of the election.

Besides, it was the concurrent findings of the tribunal that some of the petitioner’s witnesses were persons with vested interest in the case which have no probative value in line with section 91(3) of the Evidence Act. The court held that section 91 (3) of the Evidence Act prohibits the admissibility of documents produced by witnesses with vested interest in a case.

It defined an interested persons to mean a person affected by the outcome of an action and who has a temptation to perverse the truth.

The court  held that though the petitioners alleged that the election was marred by irregularities, they failed to give specific details of where the alleged infractions took place.

The court noted that whereas Obi and the LP insisted that the election was rigged in 18,088 polling units across the federation, they were unable to state the locations of the said polling units.

It further held that Obi’s allegation that fictitious results were recorded to President Tinubu and the APC, by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was not proved. More so, it held that the Petitioners were unable to state the figures they claimed were reduced from election results they garnered in different states of the federation, especially in Ondo, Oyo, Rivers, Yobe, Borno, Tabara, Osun and Lagos states.

It held that the Petitioners equally failed to state the polling units where over-voting occured 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 report and expert analysis of their expert witnesses, they failed to attach the documents to the petition or serve same on the Respondents as required by the law.

The court held that though the petition contained serious allegations that bordered on violence, non-voting, suppression of votes, fictitious entry of election results and corrupt practices, the Petitioners, however, failed to give particulars of specific polling units where the incidences 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.

•Obi’s nomination internal matter

Nevertheless, the court dismissed the contention of the Respondents that Obi was not validly nominated by the LP to contest the presidential election.

They insisted that his name could not have been contained in the membership register of the LP, which ought to be submitted to INEC 30 days before the primary election held. However, the court, in its ruling, held that the issue of membership is an internal affair of a political party, which is not justiceable. It held that only the LP has the prerogative of determining who is its member, adding that the Respondents were bereft of the legal to query Obi’s membership of the LP.

In like manner,  the court, held that contrary to contention by Tinubu and the APC, the Petitioners, were not under any obligation to join Atiku who came second in the election or his party, the PDP in the case. It held that both Atiku and PDP are not statutory Respondents or necessary parties to the petition.

•Failed to prove Tinubu convicted

On the main petition, Justice Tsammani held that Obi and LP did not produced evidence to establish that the $460, 000 fine that was imposed on Tinubu in the US, was in a civil matter.

The court held that such fine did not translate to a criminal conviction that was capable of warranting Tibubu’s disqualification from contesting the presidential election that held on February 25. It held that a careful perusal of exhibits that were adduced before the court, showed that the case that led to the fine that was awarded against President Tinubu, “was in the civil docket” of the court in the US.

He held that contrary to the contention of the Petitioners, the case was a civil forfeiture proceeding against funds that were in the bank and not an action that was against Tinubu as a person. He described such civil forfeiture proceeding as a unique remedy that is targeted at a property and not the owner.

Besides, the judge said a conviction by a court has elapsed after 10 years, according to the 1999 Constitution.

More so, the court held that Obi and the LP failed to show that Tinubu was indicted, arraigned, tried or convicted for any criminal offence in the USA.

The court further noted that following a letter the Inspector General of Police wrote in 2003, the American Embassy, confirmed that there was no criminal record against Tinubu in its centralized information center.

It held that both the letter from the IGP and the response from the US Embassy were public documents that are admissible in evidence.

The court maintained that the Petitioners did not produce any evidence to establish that Tinubu was tried and convicted for an offence involving of dishonesty. Besides, the court held that a period of 10 years had elapsed since the said fine was imposed against Tinubu, saying it, therefore, could not be a valid ground to seek his disqualification.

It accordingly dismissed that leg of the petition the LP and Obi filed to nullify President Tinubu’s election.

•Electronic transmission not mandatory

On the allegations of non- transmission of election results into IReV, the court held that INEC was not mandated to send election results electronically.

Justuce Tsammani in his lead judgment held “There is no provision for the electronic transmission of election results in the Electoral Act 2022.”

On the mode of transmission of election results, the tribunal said INEC is at liberty to define the mode it intends to use.

Justice Haruna Tsammani cited a Federal High Court judgment which declared that INEC was at liberty to use any means to transmit or collate results.

“There is no evidence before this court that the Labour Party has appealed that judgment,” Justice Haruna Tsammani added, saying “relief one is resolved against the petitioners.”

•25% FCT votes interpretation fallacious, ridiculous

On the issue of 25 percent votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the tribunal described the position by the petitioners as “ridiculous”claim that getting 25% votes in the FCT is mandatory to emerge winner of a presidential election.

Justice Haruna Tsammani observed that Obi’s legal team interpretation of the word “and” was “completely fallacious” and “ridiculous”.

The judge held that a broad and liberal interpretation should prevail in interpreting the 1999 constitution. He added that the preamble of the Constitution clearly shows the equality of all Nigerians irrespective of where they live and that votes in FCT was not superior to votes in other states.

He said the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT as if it were one of the states.