Presidential tribunal: Legal fireworks end as Atiku, Obi, tinubu’s camps await judgment

The close of arguments last month at the presidential election petition court (PEPT) marked the end of the hearing until judgment is delivered.

Background

Going by the statutory provision that election petitions must be heard and determined within 180 days of filing, the presidential election petition court (PEPT), therefore, has until September 16 to deliver its judgment.

ANALYSIS: Election Litigation: Can Peter Obi again alter Nigeria’s election calendar? Legal Attorney Blog

A five-member court panel presided over by Haruna Tsammani at the last sitting reserved its judgment, declaring that a date for review would be communicated to parties in the suit.

Without prejudicing the court and going by the provisions guiding electoral petitions, the final judgment in the 2023 presidential contest between Peter Obi (LP), Abubakar Atiku (PDP) and President Bola Tinubu (APC) is expected to be delivered before the end of September.

Fashola petitions IGP over allegation of drafting Tribunal judgement.

The tribunal reserves judgment in petitions against Sanwo-Olu’s re-election.

On March 20, to be specific, this Blueprint recalled that Obi, the LP presidential candidate, had filed a petition rejecting the election outcome.

His stance followed a legal action from the LP, PDP and APM candidates at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT).

Presidential tribunal: Legal fireworks end as Atiku, Obi, tinubu’s camps await judgment

The petitions to quash his election started streaming just a few days after Tinubu was declared the winner of the February 25 poll.

In the petition, Obi urged the court to nullify President Tinubu’s victory in the presidential election. While advancing his arguments, Obi alleged that Nigeria’s electoral commission, INEC, failed to “substantially comply with the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act” in its conduct of the polls.

The LP candidate and his counterpart in the PDP argued further that apart from the fact that Tinubu did not score 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT as required by the constitution, the election they insisted was characterized by irregularities, ranging from rigging to manipulation of election results, intimidation and suppression of voters, destruction of ballot boxes and papers, and thuggery among others, including claims that Tinubu and his running mate, Kashim Shettima, were not qualified to contest the election in the first instance.

Consequent to arguments occasioned by the legal brawl, the parties’ counsels battled one another for about three months, and now, the discussion has closed. Final written address and other submissions have also been taken. Now the development of when the final verdict would be delivered has increased growing apprehension in the camps of the LP, PDP and the ruling APC on the one hand and the citizenry on the other.

While declaring the winner, INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu it will be recalled announced that Tinubu polled 8,794,726 votes to beat Atiku, who polled 6,984,520, and Peter Obi, who placed third with 6,101,533.

By that score, INEC stressed further that Tinubu had met the first constitutional requirement of garnering the highest votes among all the candidates. He said he also scored over 25 per cent of the votes cast in 30 states, more than the 24 states that are constitutionally required.

However, many aggrieved persons and some political parties who faulted the declaration have argued that INEC had neglected an essential constitutional requirement, which states that a candidate must score 25 per cent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, to be declared president of Nigeria.

Concerns:

Earlier in a 14-page response, Tinubu’s lawyers had argued that Obi and LP “abandoned” their petition in their final written address.

They asked the court to dismiss their arguments over the “clear manifestation and display of abandonment of the entire petition”.

The president’s lawyers insisted that Obi and LP did not address the “purported failure of INEC to supply them Form ECSAS in several polling units” and the allegations of “mutilations, cancellations and outright swapping of votes”.

Tinubu lawyers said: “From this simple grammatical provision of the rules, it is clear that the petitioners have not formulated any issue for determination capable of being considered or countenanced by this honourable court; and the court can also not consider their address without problems for the resolution being presented by them.

“Throughout their address, this sweeping statement has not been activated by pointing to any specific Form ECSA, which is caught by their alleged vices, or which contains any figure/votes swapped in favour of the 2nd and 4th respondents, against the petitioners; what the figures are, how the said figures have affected their votes, and how the said conjectured figures have aided the votes of the respondents,” the lawyers said.

“With respect, the entire address, like the petition itself, is a fiction.”

In a written address dated July 14, the 2nd and 3rd respondents, led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), faulted the claims of Obi’s witnesses, including the seventh witness, Clarita Ogah, who had claimed to be a cloud engineer and a member of staff at Amazon.

The respondents also warned the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that misinterpreting the law as provided for in the constitution on the 25% of lawful votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, could “lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy and alteration of the very intention of the legislature.”

However, the petitioners, in their final written address filed by Obi’s lead counsel, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, said there will only be anarchy if the rule of law is truncated.

“This is a cheap, misguided, and destructive blackmail clearly intended to target the country’s judicial and constitutionalism. It also aims at cannibalising our democracy.

“When has it become offensive for Petitioners to canvas a ground prescribed for the challenge of an election in section 134(1)(b) of the Electoral Act? Desperation taken too far can be extremely dangerous. Let the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) know that where the rule of law is trampled upon or truncated, anarchy reigns supreme,” the written address partly read.

More submissions

The presidential election petition court has also reserved judgment in the petition filed by Atiku Abubakar, candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Among several issues raised in the joint petition, Atiku and the PDP alleged that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the poll.

While closing his case, Atiku made some prayers, including that Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes. Therefore his victory is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional and should be voided.

Atiku prayed that the court declare him the winner as he scored the majority of lawful votes in the presidential election, among others.

While adopting his final address, Abubakar Mahmoud, counsel to INEC, said the central kernel of the petitioners’ case “is around the non-compliance with the provision of the electoral act”.

He argued: “While I agree that the use of technology is to enhance transparency, the evidence adduced by the petitioners themselves shows the good intentions of INEC to conduct a credible, free and fair election to which they sought to deploy plausible technology.

“There is no electronic collation system prescribed by the commission. Collation remained manual. They failed woefully to establish that the glitch on IReV was caused by human interference and that it affected the election outcome.”

Finally, Mahmoud said the argument that winning 25% of votes in the FCT is a requirement for winning the election “is absurd”.

Regarding dual citizenship, Lateef Fagbemi, APC counsel, told the court that the constitution provides that a Nigerian citizen by birth cannot be disqualified from contesting in the presidential poll. He, however, noted that the president holds no other citizenship.

Fagbemi said the issue of dual citizenship has already been settled by various courts and the Supreme Court in  Oyetola Vs INEC & Others.

Addressing the issue of disqualification on the grounds of indictment on drug trafficking, the senior lawyer said Tinubu never faced a criminal allegation in the United States.

“The forfeiture proceedings do not fit into the prescription of qualification,” he said.

“It is not a disqualifying factor. No evidence of arraignment or pleadings. It was a civil forfeiture proceeding.”

He prayed the court to “throw this petition as far as your hands can carry because it has failed in its roots and branches”.

The petitioners urged the court to uphold their case.

Similarly, Tinubu and his APC party told the tribunal that LP’s Obi should not be part of a run-off.

They argue that Obi was not qualified to fly the LP’s flag in the election because his name was not contained in the membership register submitted to the INEC before the polls.

But as Nigerians await the tribunal’s verdict amid anxiety and expectations, discussions and opinions on the possible outcome have continued unabated.

While a handful of aggrieved persons have expressed fear that democracy is on trial, many think that the Nigeria democratic practice is still a work in progress.