The Peter Obi and Labour Party (LP) suit filed against the results of the most recent presidential election has been characterised by President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima as a jamboree primarily for media entertainment.
As a result, they are pleading with the Supreme Court to reject the Obi/LP appeal in the same way that the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) rejected their petition.
The lower court, being a court of law and not of sentiments, dutifully dismissed their petition after painstaking consideration, Tinubu and Shettima claimed in the joint respondents’ brief submitted by their legal team, which was led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN). “In short, the entire petition was nothing but a jamboree of sorts, which was prosecuted more in the media than in the courtroom,” they said.
They referred to the Allied Peoples Movement’s (APM) parallel appeal, which contested Shettima’s candidature to run in the election on February 25, as a needless waste of the court’s time.
Shettima was accused by the APM of breaking the terms of the Electoral Act in its petition to the PEPC on the grounds that he had received two nominations—one for vice president and one for Borno Central Senatorial District—from the All Progressives Congress (APC).
According to the replies, “if considered from every angle, the Obi/LP appeal is lacking in merit, substance, and good faith.”
Be it noted that, in contrast to prior election petitions over which this honourable court has presided (in the past) and made broad declarations on a variety of issues, including but not limited to ballot box snatching, vote buying, voters’ intimidation, military interference, thuggery, ballot stuffing, violence, disenfranchisement, non-recording of votes in form EC8A, which is the foundation or base of the pyramid, and such other electoral vice,
READ ALSO: Peter Obi’s certifications from UNN and NYSC use different names- Lamidi Apapa
The second, extremely improbable argument is that the second responder did not receive 25% of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
“With all due deference to the appellants, the petition reads more like a fishing trip than anything else; it invokes thunder without dews.
“We contend that the lower court (PEPC) correctly determined that the appellants (Obi and LP), as petitioners before it, had not met the legal burden of proof for their claims of non-compliance and corrupt practises.
The second and third respondents in the appeal, Tinubu and Shettima, argued that the PEPC was correct to strike out certain portions of the petition and the petitioners’ replies to the respondents’ replies because they (the petitioners) attempted to amend their case in violation of the provisions of Section 16(1)(a) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022.
They claimed that the PEPC made the appropriate choice in excluding 10 of the 13 written statements of the petitioners’ witnesses and expunging their testimony from the court’s records since the statements had not been submitted with the petition as required.
Both respondents urged the court to uphold its earlier decision in the case known as SC/CV/502/2023 – Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) v. INEC & 3 others given on May 26, 2023 – regarding the appellants’ assertion that Shettima had received two nominations.
“In an unsuccessful attempt to distinguish the said decision of this honourable court (in the PDP v. INEC & 3 others case), the appellants have argued that the judgement emanated from a pre-election matter and that, aside from the findings on locus standi, the other points on the substance were made in the supporting judgement,” they wrote.
To be fair to them, they haven’t claimed that the concurring judgements don’t constitute a part of the ruling or that the circumstances of PDP v. INEC differ from those of this case.
In a large number of its rulings, “this honourable court has reiterated the binding nature of a concurring judgement.”
According to the respondents, the PEPC correctly determined that it lacked the jurisdiction to consider Shettima’s candidature as the vice presidential candidate since Obi and the LP lacked the locus to properly raise it. The respondents further argued that the entire issue surrounding Shettima’s nomination is solely an intra-party issue.
The petition’s inclusion of the US forfeiture case, according to the second and third respondents, was an attempt to humiliate Tinubu that failed. They requested the Supreme Court to uphold the tribunal’s determination that the petitioners had not met their burden of proof in this matter.
In response to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) alleged violation of pertinent laws by failing to electronically submit election results, Obi and the LP sought the court to also uphold the PEPC’s well studied stance on the matter.
READ ALSO: Chukwuemeka Agbasi, Imam Kashim-Tinubu names new FERMA management and board members (+FULL LIST)
“A major basis for appellants’ allegations of non-compliance with regard to the presidential election of the 25th of February, 2023, is their complaint that the results of the election were not electronically transmitted to the IREV in real time (not that it was transmitted at all), and that the 1st respondent did not ensure that the results were tallied on the IREV,” they claimed.
“They argued before the lower court that the IREV should have electronically tallied the results and that failing to do so immediately invalidated the election’s outcome.
“We respectfully submit that the lower court was entirely within its rights when it held that INEC has the power to choose the mode and manner for transmitting election results in accordance with all applicable legislation now in force.
The lower court painstakingly considered the Federal High Court’s binding and unappealed decision in Labour Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission, FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022, delivered on January 23, 2023, which was tendered before it and admitted as Exhibit X1.
“For convenience, the question for decision put forth by the Labour Party in the original summons is as follows: ‘Whether having regard to the combined effect of Sections 47(2), 50(2), 60(5) and 62(1)(2) and other relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 the Respondent can still insist on manual collation of results in the forthcoming general election.'”
“Subsequently, declaratory reliefs were requested in accordance with the primary issue to be resolved.
The learned trial judge made the following ruling after carefully examining the pertinent provisions of the Electoral Act, the Regulations and Guidelines, and the Manuals: “Now, a close reading of Section 50(2) has provided for voting and transmission of results, to be done in accordance with the procedure to be determined by the commission (INEC)…
They drew attention to the process the PEPC used to decide to initially reject the petition.
“The appellants called 13 witnesses at the trial. Only three of the 13 witnesses had their witness statements frontloaded with the petition as required by the Electoral Act, consistent judicial precedents, and the Electoral Act itself.
“The other 10 witnesses, who are not adversarial witnesses, allegedly received subpoenas and had their witness statements thrown at the parties and lower court in the middle of the trial.
These forced the respondents’ attorney to raise a series of objections questioning the credibility of the witnesses who had been summoned.
“While parties presented information in support of their different viewpoints on the merits of the petition before the court, the court deferred making a decision regarding the aforementioned objections.
The appellants bemoaned INEC’s failure to electronically transfer and compile the results in real time on the IREV throughout.
“They made no effort to demonstrate how this situation had affected their votes or the election in any significant or other way.
They were actually unable to present even a single copy of the polling unit results that were given to their polling agents, making it impossible for them to demonstrate any discrepancy between the collated results and the results entered at the respective polling units, which had been acknowledged by their witnesses as containing the true picture of the election’s circumstances.
The appellants won the election in 12 states and the FCT, it is also important to note.
Surprisingly, they contested the election results in the 12 states that the PDP presidential candidate won as well as the states where they prevailed.
“As was already mentioned, the PDP’s presidential candidate finished second in the vote.
“One of the reliefs requested by the petitioners was/is that the first petitioner be proclaimed the election’s victor; however, he only won in 12 states and received 24% of the vote in 15 states and the FCT,
READ ALSO: 7 IPOB followers are freed after judge fines the police N130 million
“In rendering its decision, the lower court as was to be expected struck out the hazy and ambiguous portions of the petition as well as the witness declarations of the allegedly subpoenaed witnesses.
“Instructively, however, the lower court proceeded to decide the petition on its merits while itemising several massive failures of the petitioners to offer any evidence in support of their much-touted argument, realising that it is not a court of final instance.
The lower court also determined that the appellants had failed to meet the necessary standards of proof for any of their claims, even though it had upheld the election and declaration of the second respondent at the aforementioned presidential election.
“The court stated that, contrary to the appellants’ campaign, there is nothing in the Electoral Act that ties the legitimacy of an election to the success or failure of an upload to the IREV portal. The court also emphasised that the IREV is not a collation centre, despite the appellants’ own witnesses’ admissions to the contrary.
“The court further exposed the appellants’ failure to scientifically support their claim that they were the election’s victors by providing the entire number of votes from which they requested a declaration from the court.
The appellants have filed their appeal in opposition to the lower court’s thoughtful decision.
(NATION)
