Anxiety has begun to build up in the camp of President Bola Tinubu and the presidential candidates of the People's Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), as the day of judgement approaches at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), which is hearing a challenge to the declaration of the president as the winner of the election that took place on February 25. At issue in this challenge is the president's victory in the election.
Already, with the filing of the final addresses by both parties in the cases filed by Atiku and Obi against the election of President Tinubu, the stage is now prepared for the adoption of the written arguments to pave the way for the court to establish a date for judgement. This was made possible by the fact that the petitions were brought against the success of President Tinubu.
Both candidates had submitted separate petitions in which they contested the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to name Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election.
Tinubu's election was challenged on the grounds that, at the time of the presidential election, he was not qualified to contest on the following grounds: declaration of allegiance to a country other than Nigeria; presenting a forged university certificate; perjury; inability to win the highest number of votes cast in the election; forfeiture of proceeds from drug trafficking and money laundering in the United States; presenting a forged university certificate; and inability to win the highest number of votes cast in the election.
Both parties stated that according to the constitution, a candidate must receive at least 25 percent of the votes that are counted in the Federal Capital Territory in order to be proclaimed the winner of the presidential election.
Obi further claimed that Vice President Kashim Shettima, at the time of his nomination as running mate, was already the senatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for Borno Central. This was one of the allegations that Obi made on his own behalf.
Atiku said in his last address, which was settled by his head attorney, Chief Chris Uche, that the allegation made by INEC that he won in 21 states was not questioned, repudiated, nor refuted, and that the court should thus proceed to declare him the victor of the election. Chief Chris Uche is Atiku's primary counsel.
The former Vice President, who accused the electoral body of manipulating the outcome of the election in favour of Tinubu and the APC, urged the court not to be frightened by the ruling party but to have the fortitude to stand on the side of justice. In his accusation, the electoral body was accused of influencing the outcome of the election in favour of Tinubu and the APC.
Tinubu's assertion that there would be anarchy if the election was overturned was characterised as low-quality, misinformed, and damaging blackmail by the teams working for Atiku and Obi.
They were referring to the written address given by President Tinubu and filed by his main attorney, Wole Olanipekun. In it, he said that if the election that resulted in his becoming president is overturned, it might result in "absurdity, chaos, anarchy, and alteration of the very intention of the legislature."
In the instance of Atiku, the electoral umpire declared that the PDP presidential candidate won 21 states in the most recent presidential election in its response to Atiku's petition. It included Adamawa and Akwa Ibom among the 21 states that Atiku and his political party were able to win in the election. Bauchi. Bavelsa. Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina. Kebbi. Kogi. Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe, and Zamfara.
Atiku consequently requested the court to conclude that since the electoral umpire claimed that he won states based on its own averments, and did not challenge the assertion during the proceedings, the tribunal should proceed to affirm the declaration. The electoral umpire claimed that Atiku won the states based on its own averments.
The concluding written address included the following passage in part: "Very notably, the 1st Respondent (INEC), who administered the election, made an explicit admission in paragraph 18 of its Reply to the Petition, where it unequivocally stated thus:
"The 1st Respondent also avers that in compliance with extant rules and regulations, it conscientiously fulfilled its obligations when it tallied the 1st Petitioner's (Atiku) scores at the election which aggregates to 6,984,520 winning only 21 States to wit: Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, and so on. Bauchi. Bavelsa. Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina. Kebbi. Kogi. Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara."
"In point of fact, the First Respondent (INEC) has conceded that the First Petitioner (Atiku) was victorious in each of these 21 states. It is essential to take note that throughout the entirety of the trial, the primary Respondent (INEC) did not contradict, rebut, or countermand this crucial averment, nor did they deny it.
"Your Lordship, we respectfully request that you rule that this is an admission that does not need any additional proof. In addition, it amounts to an admission made against one's own interests.
Atiku and his party have accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of deliberately manipulating the results of the votes, but they have also termed the failure to electronically transmit the results of the election as "wilful sabotage."
blogpay
Total Comments: 0