Petitioners and respondents begin adoption of final addresses as PEPC summons them preparatory to judgment
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
All petitioners and respondents have been directed to appear before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Tuesday to begin adoption of their final addresses in the arguments to get rid of or retain Bola Tinubu as President.
The PEPC in a notice sent to the parties, invited them to adopt their written addresses on the petitions filed against Tinubu by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate Peter Obi, and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
The respondents are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, and the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Atiku and Obi are asking the court to declare that Tinubu did not secure the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and to order the withdraw of the Certificate of Return the INEC issued to him.
Alternatively, they want the court to order a fresh presidential election, with the exclusion of Tinubu whom they argued was ab initio not qualified to run for President.
The Electoral Act 2022 mandates candidates aggrieved by election result to, within 21 days after the result was declared by the INEC, file a petition before the court which shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days.
The PEPC on July 5 concluded its hearing of the petitions of both Atiku and Obi.
Obi closed his case after he called 13 witnesses who testified and tendered several exhibits before the PEPC. Atiku produced 27 witnesses and also tendered exhibits.
Both the INEC and Tinubu wrapped up their defence with one witness each, but the APC failed to produce any witness, per Vanguard.
_________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
Atiku insists INEC illegally declared Tinubu as President
Obi tears at Tinubu’s anarchy claim as desperation to retain ‘stolen mandate’
PEPC admits EU-EOM report on Nigeria’s 2023 ballot
__________________________________________________________________
Summary of petition by Atiku and PDP
Atiku, in the joint petition he filed with the PDP, maintained that
- The declaration of Tinubu as winner of the presidential election was “invalid by reason of non- compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022”, and he “was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.”
- Tinubu “was at the time of the election not qualified to contest.”
- Tinubu “demonstrated inconsistency as to his actual date of birth, secondary schools he attended (Government College, Ibadan); his state of origin, gender, actual name; certificates evidencing universities attended (Chicago State University).”
- “The purported degree certificate of [Tinubu] allegedly acquired at Chicago State University did not belong to him but to a female (F) described as “F” in the certificate bearing the name Bola Tinubu.”
- “[Tinubu] did not disclose to the INEC his voluntary acquisition of the citizenship of Republic of Guinea with Guinean Passport No. D00001551, in addition to his Nigerian citizenship.”
- Tinubu did not meet the constitutional threshold and “is constitutionally disabled from contesting for office of President of Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Summary of petition by Obi and LP
Obi and LP in their own petition argued that
- At the time Tinubu’s running mate, Kashim Shettima, became the vice presidential candidate, he was still the nominated candidate of the APC for the Borno Central Senatorial District.
- Tinubu was indicted and fined $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.
- The INEC breached its own Regulations and Guidelines on the grounds the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022.
- As contained in its Regulations, the INEC was mandatorily required to prescribe and deploy technological devices for the accreditation, verification, continuation and authentication of voters and their particulars.
- Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election and all the votes recorded for him were wasted votes owing to his non-qualification/disqualification.
- “That it be determined that on the basis of the remaining votes (after discountenancing the votes credited to the 2nd Respondent) the 1st Petitioner (Obi) scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25% of the votes cast in at least 2/3 of the States of the Federation, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the 25th February 2023 presidential election.
- “That it be determined that the 2nd Respondent having failed to score one-quarter of the votes cast at the presidential election in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, was not entitled to be declared and returned as the winner of the presidential election held on 25th February, 2023.
- In the alternative, the PEPC should cancel the election and compel the INEC to conduct a fresh election in which Tinubu, Shettima, and the APC shall not participate.
- Since Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast in the election, his return as the winner was unlawful, unconstitutional, and of no effect whatsoever.
- The PEPC should hold the presidential election was void on the grounds it was not conducted substantially in accordance with the Electoral Act 2022 and the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
- The PEPC should issue an order “cancelling the presidential election conducted on 25th February 2023 and mandating the 1st Respondent to conduct a fresh election for the President, the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Summary of petition by APM
The APM adopted its final written address on July 14 but the court reserved its judgment until the time to rule on all the petitions.
The APM argued that
- The withdrawal of Ibrahim Masari who was initially nominated as APC vice presidential candidate, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
- There was a gap of about three weeks between the period when Masari expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Shettima.
- Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.
Summary of response by respondents
All the respondents in their respective written addresses urged the court to dismiss all the petitions for want of merit.
They argued the petitioners
- Were unable to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by the law.
- Raised allegations that had elements of crime in them but failed to prove them beyond reasonable doubt as required by the law.
- Urged the court to hold that Tinubu was validly returned as winner of the election by the INEC.
