Atiku, Obi plan appeal as election tribunal dashes bid to sack Tinubu

•Atiku, Obi’s rigging allegations not proved, e-transmission not compulsory, says PEPT

•It is victory for democracy, Tinubu, APC hail judgment, LP, Atiku fume, fault tribunal

The Peoples Democratic Party's presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and his Labour Party counterpart, Peter Obi, have both disputed the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal's decision to confirm President Bola Tinubu's election on Wednesday.

Kehinde Edun, the Labour Party's Legal Adviser, has vowed to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

In addition, Atiku's Lead Counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, stated that his client had instructed him to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

"The judgment has been delivered, but we have not received justice," he remarked. Fortunately, the law has provided us with the means to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. Our clients have directed us to proceed to the Supreme Court. "The fight goes on."

The PEPT, which convened at 9.40 a.m. at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, concluded unanimously that the case submitted by Atiku and Obi and their parties had no merit and confirmed Tinubu's electoral victory in the February 25 presidential election.

The five-member bench took turns dismissing petitions brought by Atiku and Obi challenging the Independent National Electoral Commission's announcement of Tinubu as the victor of the presidential election on March 1, 2023.

The decision was delivered by the tribunal's Chairman, Justice Haruna Tsammani, who was assisted by the panel's other members, Justices Stephen Adah, Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Moses Ugo, and Abba Mohammed.

Tsammani delivered the death knell to Atiku's case on Wednesday night, saying, "This petition accordingly lacks merit." I reaffirm Bola Ahmed Tinubu's return as the constitutionally elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The parties must incur their own costs."

The LP's National Legal Adviser, Edun, expressed unhappiness with the outcome, claiming that the tribunal was unjust in rejecting 10 of their 13 witnesses and that the decision harmed their case.

"We had a feeling this was going to happen," Edun remarked. For instance, the court stated that the testimonies of some significant witnesses should have been filed with the applications. How is that possible? A subpoena is a court order that requires a witness to appear and deliver evidence before or at the time you file the petition.

''This is due to the fact that neither I nor the tribunal have assumed jurisdiction. We're just getting started. The court assumes jurisdiction only after filing, not prior. So, how do you file a witness statement when you file the petition? When the judge signs the subpoena."

''That subpoena is an invitation to the person stating that the court has issued him an order to come and give testimony,'' he stated. So, if the court has not ordered the person to make a statement, how can he?

'This is why I said the decision was unusual. And it is based on the fact that they suppressed the testimony of ten of our thirteen witnesses, which inevitably harmed our case. It's an odd decision."

The legal consultant revealed that the apex court will be the final arbiter in the party's future course of action.

"There are some submissions that we find unacceptable. So we'll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say about this. We must handle this not only for the benefit of today, but also for the sake of our jurisprudence. We're curious to hear what the Supreme Court judges have to say about all of this. It is critical to do this for the purpose of tomorrow.

Tsammani earlier delivered judgment on Obi and LP's petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023, saying the petitioners failed to substantiate the claims in their petition as required by law and proceeded to knock out the planks of the case one by one.

The panel ruled that, while the petitioners claimed that the election was marred by anomalies, they failed to provide specifics about where the alleged violations occurred.

The court noted that, while Obi and the LP claimed that the election was rigged in 18, 088 polling units across the federation, they were unable to specify where these polling units were located.

The tribunal also found that Obi's claim that the Independent National Electoral Commission recorded fraudulent results for Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress was not proven in the five-hour-long ruling.

Furthermore, it stated that the petitioners were unable to provide the figures they claimed were lowered from the election results they obtained in several parts of the federation, including Ondo, Oyo, Rivers, Yobe, Borno, Tabara, Osun, and Lagos.

It further stated that the petitioners failed to specify the polling locations where over-voting happened or the exact number of illegal votes attributed to Tinubu by the INEC.

It emphasized that, despite the fact that Obi and LP stated that they would rely on spreadsheets, forensic reports, and expert analysis of their expert witnesses, they neglected to attach the documents to the petition or serve them on the respondents as required by law.

The court stated that, despite the petition containing serious allegations of violence, non-voting, suppression of votes, fictitious entry of election results, and corrupt practices, Obi and his party failed to provide specific polling units where the incidents occurred.

It ruled that various parts of the petition containing the claims were "vague, imprecise, nebulous, and devoid of specific materials."

As a result, the court dismissed the petition's paragraphs 9, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 83, and 89.

"They did not state how many votes were affected or how many people were disenfranchised." "The election is determined by figures," declared Justice Mohammed.

"It is unthinkable that a petitioner will allege widespread rigging in 176,000 polling units, over 8,000 wards, 774 LGAs, 36 states, and the FCT without naming the specific location where the alleged irregularities occur," he added.

"The law is clear that if someone alleges irregularities in a specific polling unit, that person must prove the specific irregularities in that polling unit in order to succeed in his petition."

"The Labour Party made broad allegations of irregularities and stated that they would rely on spreadsheets, inspection reports, and forensic analysis, but the petitioners' promised documents were not attached."

The nomination of Obi has been confirmed.

Nonetheless, the court rejected the respondents'-Tinubu and the APC--claim that Obi was not lawfully nominated by the LP to run in the presidential election.

The respondents claimed Obi abandoned the PDP on May 24, 2022 and joined the LP on May 27, 2022.

According to the respondents' appeal, Obi was not a valid member of the LP as of May 30, 2022, and so could not have participated in its presidential primary election.

They maintained that his name could not have been on the LP's membership register, which was supposed to be submitted to INEC 30 days before the primary election.

The court, however, ruled that the issue of membership is an internal matter of a political party and hence not justiciable.

It argued that only the LP has the ability to determine its members, and that the respondents lacked the legal authority to question Obi's membership in the LP.

Similarly, the court ruled that, contrary to Tinubu and the APC's claims, the petitioners were not required to join Atiku, who finished second in the poll, or his party, the PDP, in the action.

It was pointed out that neither Atiku nor the PDP are statutory respondents or required parties to the petition.

"The petitioners have evidently failed to establish their allegation that the 2nd respondent is disqualified from contesting the presidential election under section 137 (1)(d) of the 1999 constitution because he was fined $460,000 by a district court in Illinois," Justice Tsammani said of Tinubu's alleged $460,000 forfeiture to the United States Government.

"The forfeiture order in exhibit P5, on which the petitioners have relied, does not qualify as a sentence of fine for an offence involving dishonesty or fraud within the formulation of section 137 (d) of the 1999 constitution."

25% of the FCT votes

Tsammani decided on the interpretation of the 25% vote cast in the Federal Capital Territory, ruling that the LP's reading of the constitution on the matter is "fallacious."

Sections 134 (1) and (2) of Nigeria's 1999 Constitution (as amended) state that a presidential candidate must obtain or score a majority of votes cast in a presidential election involving two or more candidates, as well as at least 25% in two-thirds of the 36 states and the FCT, in order to be declared duly elected as President of Nigeria.

"With due respect to counsel to the petitioners, their interpretation of the provision of the constitution as regards the 25% in Abuja is fallacious, if not completely ludicrous," the jurist stated, emphasizing that voters' rights are equal regardless of where they live in the country.

Tsammani added, "The futility and hollowness in the petitioners' arguments that the votes of the voters in the FCT have more weight than others in other parts of the country to the extent that their votes purportedly have a greater effect on other votes is null and void."

Meanwhile, the tribunal has stated that it is not essential for INEC to transmit election results electronically, and that INEC is free to choose the mode.

It emphasized that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System is the only technology requirement specified for use by the commission during elections.

"In accordance with Sections 52 and 65 of the Electoral Act, INEC is free to prescribe the manner in which results can be transmitted." "The INEC cannot be forced to transmit results electronically," the court said.

The European Union Election Observers Mission report on the February 25 presidential election won by Peter Obi and the Labour Party was rejected by the judiciary.

The court stated that it rejected the report because it was not submitted by an officer of the body that is the author and has possession of the document.

Similarly, the tribunal dismissed accusations of noncompliance with the Electoral Act 2022 submitted by Atiku and the PDP against Tinubu's election.

Justice Adah said the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the election did not comply with the provisions of sections 134 and 135 of the Electoral Act.

"There must be sufficient grounds before the petitioners can establish that there was no substantial compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the election," he explained. The petitioners have outlined some of the facts relevant to their allegations of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 in their petition.

''The relevant facts are found in the petition's paragraphs 18, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40-44, 46, and 48. The respondents disagree with the petitioners on this point, and they all deny the facts alleged by the petitioners.

"The first respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission, responded to the petition in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, and denied all of the allegations in the petition." The burden of proof rests with the petitioners to substantiate their claim in accordance with the law.

''Aside from the first respondent, who is the major respondent because it is its activities that are challenged in this petition, the second and third respondents, who are the beneficiaries of the pronouncement of the result, disagree with the petitioners on a variety of matters.

"The second respondent, in his reply to the petition, countered all the petitions pleaded in the case of the issue," he continued. In his reply to the petition, the third response refuted the petitioners' assertions in paragraphs 36, 37, and 40.

"Noncompliance is defined as the failure or refusal to do something that you are legally or statutorily required to do." In section 134 of the Electoral Act 2022, which appears to be a provision to section 134, the obvious ground on which elections might be challenged is given out.

"Sections 134 and 135 of the Electoral Act must be considered together for a proper appreciation of the law's intention."

Electoral Act sections

Section 134 (1) says that an election may be questioned on any of the following grounds-A person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election; the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act.

"An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not materially affect the outcome of the election."

Having said so, Justice Adah went on to say, "This ground of non-compliance with the Electoral Act has been in all our election laws, even when we had a parliamentary system of government."

Adah, who read the judgement on objections to the petition, threw out numerous documents presented by Atiku on the basis that they were created during the petition's pendency.

The tribunal also removed from the court's records several crucial witnesses submitted by Atiku for acting in ways not permitted by law.

It ruled that the Adamawa-born presidential candidate's erroneous method of petition drafting rendered many paragraphs void for lack of merit.

The court went on to strike down elements of Atiku's and his party's reply, including the part in which they accused Tinubu of having dual citizenship.

It also dismissed the petitioners' contention that Tinubu was unqualified due to an alleged criminal conviction and criminal forfeiture in the United States.

The court determined that the information in the reply was an attempt to smuggle in new evidence to compensate for the information they neglected to give in their petition to support their allegation that Tinubu was unqualified.

It ruled that the statements of the two witnesses, as well as other documents presented with the reply, were inadmissible.

Justice Ugoh ruled on several objections raised by Tinubu's main counsel, Wole Olanipekun SAN, that several parts of Atiku's petition could not stand or survive, and so is incompetent.

In a similar decision, the court ruled that the former vice president failed to produce many facts that were fundamentally required to support his petition.

It claimed that the PDP candidate failed to identify the locations where ballot boxes were stolen, the methods and styles in which the BVAS machines were altered, and the exact polling stations where the alleged malpractices occurred.

Atiku, who claimed to have received the majority of valid ballots, was accused of failing to indicate in strong words the total number of lawful votes he claimed to have received.

Though the former VP claimed Tinubu did not receive a majority of valid votes, the court ruled that he failed to disclose the purported lawful votes in his plea to the tribunal.

The panel recalled that the petitioner leveled serious claims against Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello and the Chairman of Kogi's Olamaboro Local Government Area, Friday Adejoh, but failed to name them as respondents in his case.

The refusal to join the governor accused of electoral fraud, according to Justice Ugoh, hampered the petition because the governor was denied the right to defend himself as required by law.

As a result, the justice dismissed the petitioner's assertions of nationwide over-voting, stating that such pleas violate the law because he failed to specify the exact areas where the alleged over-voting occurred.

Atiku's petition was also criticized for presenting various facts and charges in illegal methods that caught the respondents off guard, saying that the strategy was unfair and only made him half as brilliant.

The claims of certificate fraud, criminal conviction, and dual citizenship of Guinea brought against Tinubu outside the manner of filing a petition were among the fresh facts he was deemed to have wrongfully introduced.

The APM petition was denied.

The tribunal began the day's proceedings by dismissing the Allied Peoples Movement's petition challenging Vice President Kashim Shettima's credentials.

The panel chairman who read his ruling said the matter was a pre-election matter and ought to have been challenged before the conduct of the presidential election.

He held that sections 131 and 237 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, made provisions for the qualification or disqualification of candidates in an election.

He said, “The issue of qualification or disqualification is a constitutional one.  The issue of disqualification or qualification is a pre-election matter. It must be determined before the conduct of the election. This court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter and even if it does, it is status-barred because it is a pre-election matter.”

He added that 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.

But the LP leadership rejected the verdict ‘’because justice was not served and it did not reflect the law and the desire of the people.’’

In a statement issued shortly after the verdict, LP National Publicity Secretary Obiora Ifoh hinted that the party will speak with its legal staff on the next steps.

"The Labour Party watched with dismay and trepidation today's dismissal of petitions by the five-man panel of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, and we reject the outcome of the judgment in its entirety because justice was not served, and it did not reflect the law and the will of the people," he said.

“Nigerians were witnesses to the electoral robbery that took place on February 25, 2023, which was globally condemned but the Tribunal in its wisdom refused to accept the obvious. What is at stake is democracy and we will not relent until the people will prevail.

‘’Details of the party’s position will be presented after consultation with our lawyers after the Certified True Copy of the judgment is made available to us.”

Tinubu welcomes judgement

Meanwhile, President Tinubu has assured Nigerians of his renewed and energised focus on delivering his vision of a unified, peaceful and prosperous nation, following the judgment by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja.

“President Tinubu welcomes the judgment of the Tribunal with an intense sense of solemn responsibility and preparedness to serve all Nigerians, irrespective of all diverse political persuasions, faiths, and tribal identities,” the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Ajuri Ngelale, revealed in a statement on Wednesday night.

The statement was titled ‘President Tinubu welcomes tribunal verdict and calls for collective efforts to build the nation.’

The President said he recognised the diligence, undaunted thoroughness, and professionalism of the five-member bench in interpreting the law.

He affirmed that his commitment to the rule of law, and the unhindered discharge of duties by the tribunal, as witnessed in the panel’s exclusive respect for the merits of the petitions brought forward, further reflected the continuing maturation of Nigeria’s legal system.

According to Tinubu, the development speaks to the advancement of Africa’s largest democracy “at a time when our democratic system of government is under test in other parts of the continent.”

The President believed the presidential candidates and political parties that have lawfully exercised their rights by participating in the 2023 general elections and the judicial process, which followed, have affirmed Nigeria’s democratic credential.

The APC chairman, Ganduje commended the verdict, stressing that it addressed all the issues raised by the petitioners.

According to the former Kano governor, the judgment is a true reflection of the mandate Nigerians gave to the party and urged Atiku and Obi to cooperate with the present administration in its effort to address the challenges facing the country.

Dignitaries who were in court included Vice President Shettima, the APC National Chairman Abdullahi Ganduje; and governors  Abdullahi Sule (Nasarawa), Abiodun  Oyebanji (Ekiti), Yahaya Bello (Kogi), Hope Uzodinma (Imo), former Yobe State Governor, Mala Buni;  LP Chairman, Julius Abure, and several PDP chieftains.

Commenting on the judgment, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, said  it was time for sober reflection for the country, noting that the court verdict ‘’was not totally unexpected, given the stark realities facing us as a nation and the state of the law.’’

He noted that the rules of presumption of regularity of elections and considerable conformity made successful prosecution of election petitions extremely difficult.

Chief Chekwas Okorie, the founder of the All Progressives Grand Alliance, expressed happiness with the verdict, which upheld Tinubu's electoral victory.

"I am not surprised by the outcome of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal's decision," he stated. They (petitioners) appeared to have depended on obtaining technical points to win their petitions rather than proving a case of major non-compliance with electoral law. Their strategy was a failure.''