The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) on Wednesday in Abuja picked holes in the petition of the Labour Party’s presidential candidate, Peter Gregory Obi, ruling that it was defective and greatly incompetent.
In the ruling that lasted several hours, and delivered under heavy security presence that stretched from the Appeal court’s premises to the Three Arms zone, the Tribunal dwelt on several objections against the petition and struck out several paragraphs of the petition for being vague, incompetent, inconsistent, nebulous and self-contradictory.
The ruling however ruled in favour of Obi’s membership of the Labour Party, stating that he had the locus to file the petition against the victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Bola Tinubu at the February 25 presidential polls.
In the ruling delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, a member of the election tribunal, Obi’s petition was said to have raised several general allegations of malpractices, irregularities, and corruption without being specific as required by law.
The Tribunal held that while Obi claimed to have scored the highest number of lawful votes in the February 25 presidential election, he failed to state or specify the number of lawful votes he claimed to have won.
Justice Mohammed said to worsen the situation, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate pleaded report of forensic experts but failed to file the report along with the petition or serve the same on the respondents in the petition.
Besides, Justice Mohammed said Obi’s claim that his votes were suppressed in favour of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, APC, was vague because he failed to give out any figure of votes to establish the claim.
The Tribunal also quashed Obi’s allegations that votes credited to Tinubu were inflated, ruling that the allegations were untenable because he never mentioned the number of votes given to Tinubu from his.
On the allegations of corrupt practices, Justice Mohammed stated that it is not every allegation of corruption that is regarded as corrupt practices, adding that averments in a pleading must be specific and not general as done by Obi.
“The Law is very clear that where someone alleged irregularities in a particular polling unit, as in the instant petition, such a person must prove the particular irregularities in that polling unit for him to succeed in his petition,” it held.
The Tribunal also held that Obi did not prove the particular polling units where elections did not take place and that he also failed to specify particulars of polling units where the complaints of irregularities were alleged.
Comments are closed.