The legal battle to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu shifts to the Supreme Court today as the hearing commences on three separate appeals brought by opposition parties at the poll.
The former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, the candidate of the Labour Party, (LP), Peter Obi, and the Allied Peoples Movement, (APM) are contesting the stool and the Supreme Court communicated the hearing date through notices to all the parties last Thursday.
All the appellants are praying that the apex court set aside the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC), which affirmed Bola Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress, (APC), as the valid winner of the presidential election held on February 25.
While Atiku, through his team of 67 lawyers comprising 18 Senior Advocates of Nigeria led by Chris Uche, SAN, filed 35 grounds of appeal to challenge Tinubu’s election victory, Obi’s team of lawyers led by Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, filed 51 grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court.
On its part, the APM lodged 10-grounds of appeal to invalidate President Tinubu’s election.
Both Atiku and Obi, who came second and third respectively, are seeking to set aside the judgement of the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel of the PEPC, which had on September 6, dismissed the petitions they filed against Tinubu.
Atiku contended that the verdict of the PEPC was not only “against the weight of evidence”, but occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice against him.
He insisted that the PEPC panel erred in law, when it failed to nullify the presidential election on the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, of 2022, even when evidence showed that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, acted in breach of extant laws and regulations guiding the conduct of elections.
Atiku accused the PEPC of reaching its unanimous decision based on gross misconstruction and misrepresentation of provisions of both the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the Electoral Act, 2022.
According to him, “The lower court erred in law when it refused to uphold the mandatoriness of electronic transmission of results for confirmation and verification of final results introduced by the Electoral Act 2022 for transparency and integrity of results in accordance with the principles of the Act.”
He argued that sections 64(4) & (5) of the Electoral Act, as well as INEC’s Regulations & Guidelines for the conduct of the election, which he tendered in evidence, made mandatory, the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, machines for electronic transmission of results of the election directly from the polling units to INEC’s collation system for the verification, confirmation and collation of results before the announcement.
Atiku told the Apex court that some of the Presiding Officers who personally handled the BVAS machines at polling units on the election day, had in their testimony before the PEPC, “confirmed the non-transmission of results of the presidential election electronically from the BVAS machines, whereas results of the National Assembly election that was held simultaneously, were electronically transmitted without difficulty.”
Atiku told the apex court that the non-compliance with the Electoral Act was nationwide, cutting across 176, 846 polling units in the country, a situation he said substantially affected the outcome of the election.
On the constitutional requirement of one-quarter of the votes in two-thirds of the states and the FCT, Abuja, Atiku, argued that it was an additional and mandatory requirement to the provisions relating to the highest lawful votes and therefore a condition precedent to a declaration by INEC.
“The said FCT, Abuja, cannot be construed as the 37th state of Nigeria as done by the lower court in the light of the clear provisions of section 2(2) & section 3(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
“The lower court failed to interpret the material word ‘AND’ in the sub-section.
“The provision of section 134(2) (b) of the Constitution is clear on the requirement that a presidential candidate just score at least 25% of the total votes in the FCT, Abuja.
“There is no ambiguity or absurdity in the provision of section 134 (2) (b) of the Constitution to warrant a resort the any other cannon of interpretation other than the literal rule as the lower court erroneously did,” Atiku further stated in the appeal he filed alongside his party.
He prayed the Supreme Court to among other things, hold that Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the election and also declared that he was not qualified to be declared the winner.
Aside from praying the court to declare him as the authentic winner of the election and order his swearing-in as President, Atiku, in the alternative, urged the court to order a run-off between him and Tinubu or to nullify the entire poll and order INEC to conduct a fresh one.
Cited as Respondents in the appeal were INEC, Tinubu and the APC.
Meanwhile, in his own appeal, Obi argued that the PEPC panel erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion when it dismissed his petition.
He alleged that the panel wrongly evaluated the proof of evidence he adduced before it and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when it held that he did not specify polling units where irregularities occurred during the election.
Obi and the LP further faulted the PEPC for dismissing their case on the premise that they did not specify the figures of votes or scores that were allegedly suppressed or inflated in favour of President Tinubu and the APC.
They equally accused the Justice Tsammani-led panel of erring in law when it relied on paragraphs 4(1) (d) (2) and 54 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022 to strike out paragraphs of the petition.
While accusing the lower court of breaching his right to a fair hearing, Obi, insisted that evidence of his witnesses was wrongly dismissed as incompetent.
He told the apex court that the panel unjustly dismissed his allegation that INEC uploaded 18, 088 blurred results to its IReV portal.
Furthermore, Obi, alleged that the lower court ignored his allegation that certified true copies of documents that INEC issued to his legal team, comprised of 8,123 blurred results that contained blank A4 papers, pictures, and images of unknown persons, purporting the same to be the CTC of polling units results of the presidential election.
“The learned justices of the court below erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when they held and concluded that he failed to establish the allegation of corrupt practices and over-voting,” Obi added.
He said it was wrong for the lower court to rely on the legal principle of estoppel to dismiss his contention that INEC bypassed its own regulations when it refused to electronically transmit the results of the election from polling units to the IReV.
Obi insisted that the PEPC overlooked evidence that established that President Tinubu was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460, 000 in the USA over his involvement in a drug-related case.
“Imposition of a fine is not limited to a criminal conviction, as the word, in law, includes a civil forfeiture,” Obi further argued in his appeal.
Meanwhile, in its appeal, the APM maintained its position that Tinubu was not eligible to participate in the presidential poll.
It alleged that the PEPC relied on a technicality to dismiss the petition it filed to challenge Tinubu’s nomination by the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC.
According to the party, 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.
It faulted the verdict the PEPC delivered on September 6, saying it was wrong for the court to dismiss its case against Tinubu’s election on the premise that it was not only incompetent but contained pre-election issues.
APM argued that sections 131 and 142 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, were inextricably linked “and neither can be confined as a pre-election matter, as these qualifications are condition precedents to being elected to the office of President.”
It is therefore praying the Supreme Court hold that the PEPC became interested in technical issues solely beneficial to the 3rd and 4th Respondents in the appeal (Tinubu and Shettima), rather than concentrating on whether they were validly elected or not.
It contended that being validly elected entailed “being qualified to contest the election,” adding that a valid election includes the threshold of qualifications and disqualification, as stipulated in the Constitution.
The party wants the apex court to declare that the return of Tinubu by INEC as the President-elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, was null, void of no legal effect whatsoever.
“That the withdrawal of the 5th respondent (Ibrahim Masari), as Vice Presidential candidate to Tinubu by the operation of the law amounted to automatic withdrawal and invalidation of the candidate of APC,” it added.
The APM is praying for the Supreme Court to nullify and void all votes scored by APC in the Presidential election, as well as to make an order, directing INEC to return the second-highest score at the election as the winner of the presidential contest.
Meantime, President Tinubu, APC and INEC have since asked the apex court to dismiss the appeals which they said were bereft of merit.
President Tinubu also urged the court to reject an application that Atiku filed for permission to tender a copy of his certificate that the Chicago State University in the USA released.
Comments are closed.