Presidential Poll Tribunal Validates Tinubu’s Victory, Thrashes Atiku, Obi, APM Petitions

The courtroom was turned into a classroom on Wednesday as the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) lectured the trio of Atiku Abubakar, the candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), the petitioners against President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress (APC), and the winner of the February 25 election, and in the end, validated his victory at the polls.

 

The court, in a ruling that lasted over hours, and in a unanimous decision by a five-member panel of justices, dismissed their petitions that sought to nullify President Tinubu’s election.

 

It held that the three petitioners failed to, with credible evidence establish that Tinubu was wrongly returned as the winner of the presidential contest, by the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC).

 

Though the three petitions were earlier consolidated, however, the court, in the judgement, decided them separately, starting with the case entered by the APM against the INEC, Tinubu, the Vice President, Kashim Shettima, the APC, and Ibrahim Masari.

 

Specifically, the court, held that the Vice President, Shettima, was validly nominated as Tinubu’s running mate by the APC.

 

The court noted that issues the APM raised in its petition contained pre-election matters that could only be determined by the Federal High Court.

 

Chairman of the panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani, who read the lead judgement, upheld preliminary objections that all the respondents raised to challenge the competence of the petition.

 

He stressed that since the petition centred on Tinubu’s qualification or otherwise to contest the presidential election, the APM, ought to have gone to court within 14 days after Tinubu was nominated by the APC.

 

He further held that the APM lacked the locus standi (legal right) to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy, adding that the Supreme Court had earlier decided that a political party does not have the right to challenge a nomination that was made by another party.

 

Justice Tsammani held that sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, made provisions for the qualification or disqualification of candidates in an election, and the court stressed that section 84(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, stipulated that political parties should not impose qualification criteria on a candidate, except as provided for in the constitution.

 

According to the court, sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 185 and 187 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, settled the issue of qualification and nomination of a candidate for an election.

 

It held that where an election has already been conducted and the result declared, the qualification of a candidate could no longer be challenged based on sections 131 and 137 of the Constitution.

 

The court held that since the APM failed to challenge President Tinubu’s nomination within the constitutionally allowed period, its case, therefore, had become statute-barred.

 

It held that where the constitution has qualified a candidate for an election, no other law can disqualify such candidate except the constitution itself.

 

The court held that the issue of double nomination as canvassed by the APM, was not a legally cognizable ground for disqualification, holding that the evidence before it attested that Shettima duly withdrew his candidacy for Borno Central Senatorial District on July 6, 2022, before he was nominated as Tinubu’s running mate.

 

Likewise, the court maintained that the legal dispute over Shettima’s nomination and Tinubu’s candidacy has since been settled by the Supreme Court. It held that the case having been decided by the apex court, no person is permitted to litigate on it again.

 

The court held that contrary to the contention of the APM, the APC was not under any legal obligation to conduct a primary election to nominate Shettima as Tinubu’s running mate after he withdrew his senatorial ambition.

 

It held that the petitioner failed to prove the lone ground of its case which it accordingly dismissed for want of merit.

 

The court said it found no reason why Masari was cited as the 5th Respondent in the petition since he would not in any way be affected by the outcome of the case. Consequently, it struck out his name from the petition.

 

The APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, argued that the withdrawal of Masari who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy given Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

 

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 at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

 

According to the petitioner, at the time Tinubu announced Shettima as the Vice Presidential candidate, “he was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regards to the provisions of section 142 of the 1999 Constitution”.

 

The APM contended that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that his subsequent withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.

 

It, therefore, prayed the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC as of February 25 when the election was conducted by INEC having violated the provisions of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

 

“An order nullifying and voiding all the votes scored by Tinubu in the presidential election given his non-qualification as a candidate of the APC”.

As well as an order to set aside the Certificate of Return that was issued to the President by INEC, reliefs that were rejected by the court on Wednesday.

 

On the petition by Peter Obi, the candidate of the LP, the court held that he was unable to prove that the INEC rigged the presidential election in favour of President Tinubu.

 

While a member of the panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, decided all the interlocutory motions that were filed in the case, however, Chairman of the panel, Justice Tsammani, delivered the lead judgement that dismissed Obi’s petition.

 

In his ruling, Justice Mohammed, held that Obi and the LP, did not by way of credible evidence, establish their allegation that the election was characterised by manifest corrupt practices.

 

He held that despite the petitioners’ claim that the election was marred by irregularities, they, however, 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, adding that there was no proof that INEC allocated fictitious figures to President Tinubu.

 

More so, the court 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, Benue and Lagos state.

It held 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 averred that they would rely on spreadsheets as well as forensic reports and the analysis of expert witnesses, they failed to attach the documents to the petition or serve the 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 allegation 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.

 

Nevertheless, the court dismissed the contention of the respondents 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 argued 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.

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 justifiable.

 

It held that only the LP has the prerogative of determining who is its member, adding that the respondents were bereft of the legal right to query Obi’s membership of the LP.

Likewise, the court held that contrary to contention by Tinubu and the APC, the petitioners, were not under any obligation to join Atiku Abubakar who came second in the election or his party, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the case.

 

It held that both Atiku and PDP are not statutory respondents or necessary parties to the petition.

 

Having decided the preliminary issues, the Chairman of the five-member panel, Justice Tsammani, in his judgement, invalidated the evidence of all the subpoenaed witnesses that testified for Obi and the LP.

He held that out of 13 witnesses who testified for the petitioners, only three of them had their statements attached to the petition as required by the law.

 

Justice Tsammani held that statements the witnesses made on oath were filed outside the time allowed by the law and were therefore incompetent and liable to be struck out and expunged from the records.

 

“All the documents they tendered were inadmissible and accordingly discountenanced,” Justice Tsammani held.

On the claim that President Tinubu was convicted in the United States of America, USA, on a drug trafficking-related charge, the court, said there was no evidence before it to sustain the allegation.

According to the court, both documentary and oral evidence that were tendered before it established that the $460, 000 fine that was imposed on Tinubu in the US, was in a civil matter.

 

It held that such a fine did not translate to a criminal conviction that was capable of warranting Tinubu’s disqualification from contesting the presidential election.

 

Justice Tsammani held that a careful perusal of exhibits 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 proceedings as a unique remedy that is targeted at a property and not the owner.

 

More so, the court held that Obi and the LP failed to prove 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 centre.

 

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 dishonesty.

 

Besides, the court held that a period of 10 years had elapsed since the said fine was imposed against Tinubu, saying it could therefore not be a valid ground to seek his disqualification in the 2023 general elections.

The Petitioners had among other things, challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election, alleging that he was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460,000.00 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for an offence involving dishonesty and drug trafficking.

 

They contended that such indictment, constituted a ground for disqualification under section 137 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

 

Meanwhile, on the allegation that Tinubu failed to score 25% votes in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the court, held that it was not a mandatory requirement of the law.

 

It held that contrary to the position of the Petitioners, section 134 (2) (b) of the Constitution, did not confer a special status on the FCT.

 

The court, while faulting what it termed as “futility and hollowness of argument of Petitioners that vote if residents of the FCT is higher than that of electorates in other states of the federation,” stressed that section 299 of the Constitution, clearly stipulated that Abuja should be treated as every other state.

 

It held that the FCT was neither conferred a superior or inferior status by the Constitution, describing the interpretation by the Petitioners as “fallacious.”

It held that the principle of equality of votes was enshrined in the Constitution.

likewise, the court dismissed the allegation that INEC bypassed its technological innovations by deliberately refusing to electronically transmit the results of the election.

 

The court noted that whereas the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, was introduced to aid the accreditation of voters, it held that no portion of the Electoral Act 2022 mandated the Commission to carry out electronic collation of results of the election.

 

It held that the law gave INEC the discretion to decide how to conduct the election and determine the method of transmitting the results.

 

Besides, the court held that the electoral body offered credible evidence to show that it indeed suffered a technical glitch on election day that hampered the transmission of results to its IREV portal.

 

“From the preponderance of evidence, Petitioners failed to prove their allegation that there was a deliberate action to manipulate results of the election in favour of the 2nd Respondent,” the court held.

 

It held that failure to electronically transmit the results of an election, was not a valid ground to challenge the outcome of an election, adding that Obi and the LP, failed the prove the allegation of substantial non-compliance to the Electoral Act.

 

The court maintained that where allegations are criminal, the evidence must be unambiguous and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

It held that the Petitioners were unable to discharge the burden of proof that was placed on them by the law.

 

“Having resolved all the four issues against the Petitioners, this petition is unmeritorious,” the court held.

 

On Atiku’s petition, the court held that the evidence he tendered to challenge Tinubu’s academic qualifications, was inadmissible.

 

It held that the statement on oath of Atiku’s 27th witness, Mr. Mike Enahoro-Ebah, through whom Tinubu’s Chicago State University certificate was tendered in evidence, was not attached when the petition was filed.

Other documents that Atiku tendered through the witness, which the court rejected in its judgement, included a copy of Tinubu’s alleged Guinean Passport.

 

Enahoro-Ebah had told the court that among the documents he applied for and obtained from the USA, included Tinubu’s purported certificate from Chicago State University, which he said belonged to a female.

 

He equally tendered a transcript that was issued in 1977 by South West College, which he said equally established that the Tinubu who attended Chicago State University was a female.

 

The witness told the court that whereas the forwarding letter from his lawyer in the USA, which contained Tinubu’s details, came on November 1, 2022, however, it was not until April 2023 that he received a copy of the notarized judgment on criminal asset forfeiture proceedings in a drug-related case that involved the 2nd Respondent.

 

Besides, he told the court that documents he obtained from INEC showed that the National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, certificate that Tinubu submitted in aid of his qualifications, bore the name, Adekunle.

 

Though the court had in the course of the hearing, admitted all the documents in evidence and marked them as Exhibits PDE-1 to PDE-5, however, in its judgement, held that the documents were brought after the petition had been filed.

 

The court equally declared as incompetent and inadmissible, for the same reason, was the report of a statistician that Atiku brought to testify as an expert witness in the matter.

 

The court held that the testimonies of most of the witnesses, especially the PDP collation agents, amounted to hearsay evidence.

 

It equally noted that Atiku, in the petition, raised criminal allegations against people who were not parties in the petition, among whom included Governor Bello of Kogi state.

 

It held that the onus was on the Petitioners to prove that there was substantial non-compliance to the Electoral Act, which affected the outcome of the presidential poll.

 

The court added that a Petitioner must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence, adding that the standard of proof must be beyond every reasonable doubt.

 

Whereas Justice Boluokuromo Ugo delivered the preliminary ruling, the lead judgement was delivered by Justice Tsammani.

 

Other members of the five-member panel of the court that concurred with the lead judgement that dismissed all the petitions and upheld the return of President Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election, were; Justice Stephen Adah and Justice Minsurat Bolaji-Yusuf.

 

The court held that the parties should bear the cost they incurred from the litigation.

Meantime, even though President Tinubu, Obi and Atiku were absent in court, however, among the dignitaries who attended the proceedings to listen to the judgements, were the VP, Shettima, the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, as well as the Governors of Bauchi, Kogi, Nasarawa, Imo, Yobe, Ekiti state and the Minister of Aviation and Minister of State for Defense, Festus Keyamo and Bello Matawale, respectively.

 

Others were the National Chairman of the APC, Abdullahi Ganduje, that of the LP, Julius Abure, Acting Chairman of the PDP, Umaru Damagun, as well as Nollywood actors led by Zack Orji and Yul Edochie.