Latest News

How Tribunal Dismissed APM, Obi, Atiku’s Petitions, Affirmed Tinubu’s Victory After 12-Hour Marathon Judgment

Published

3 years ago

September 7, 2023

eghosa

How Tribunal Dismissed APM, Obi, Atiku’s Petitions, Affirmed Tinubu’s Victory After 12-Hour Marathon Judgment

Tribunal

The Presidential Election Petitions Court issued a marathon 12-hour judgment on Wednesday, rejecting the petitions from the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) led by Atiku Abubakar, and the Labour Party (LP) with its presidential candidate, Peter Obi.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims of these three parties contesting the victory of President Bola Tinubu from the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 25, 2023 poll.

Led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, the five-member panel not only dismissed the consolidated petitions from the PDP, APM, and LP, but also definitively affirmed the victory of Tinubu, a former governor of Lagos State, in the presidential poll.

Justice Tsammani stated, “This petition lacks merit. I affirm Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The parties are responsible for their own costs.”

The highly anticipated judgment was delivered at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, broadcasted live from 9 am to just past 9 pm.

Among the notable attendees were Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), including Vice-President Kashim Shettima of the APC, Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila, and LP’s Julius Abure, among others.

Notably, both Peter Obi and Atiku, who had been present at previous Tribunal sessions, were absent on Wednesday. Tinubu was also not in court as he was attending the G-20 summit in India.

The Tribunal first rendered its verdict on the petitions of the APM, followed by those of the LP and the PDP.

Court Strikes Out APM’s Suit

In the case of the APM, the Tribunal rejected the party’s suit aiming to nullify Tinubu’s election, deeming it lacking in merit and legally insufficient.

Justice Tsammani, who presided over the judgment, emphasized that the issues raised in the APM’s petition were related to pre-election matters, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

The court also upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, contesting the suit’s competence.

Justice Tsammani pointed out that since the petition primarily revolved around Tinubu’s eligibility for the presidential election, the APM should have pursued legal action within 14 days after Tinubu’s nomination by the APC.

He maintained that because the cause of action pertained to a pre-election matter, the APM lacked the legal standing to challenge Tinubu’s nomination.

Furthermore, the court affirmed that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that a political party does not possess the authority to contest a nomination made by another political party.

The court highlighted that the main contention of the APM was centered on the alleged improper nomination of Tinubu’s then running mate, Shettima.

Additionally, Justice Tsammani noted that Section 84(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, mandates that political parties should not impose additional qualification criteria on a candidate, except as outlined in the constitution.

The court emphasized that once an election has been conducted and the results declared, the qualification of a candidate cannot be contested based on sections 131 and 137 of the Constitution.

‘INEC At Liberty To Prescribe Mode Of Results Transmission’

The Tribunal then turned its attention to the petitions from the Labour Party and determined that the LP’s complaint about irregularities in the 2023 presidential election was too broad.

The court affirmed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had the authority to determine the method of transmitting election results during the presidential election on February 25, 2023.

Citing Sections 52 and 65 of the Electoral Act 2022, the panel emphasized that INEC had the discretion to specify how election results were transmitted during the polling process.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the petition from the LP and Obi, which argued that Tinubu’s victory should be nullified due to the perceived “failure” of the commission’s Results Viewing Portal (IReV) to promptly upload election results electronically in real-time.

The Tribunal also rejected Obi and the LP’s petitions regarding the allocation of 25 percent of votes to Tinubu in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), asserting that Abuja should be treated similarly to other states.

The court clarified that the Electoral Act 2022 did not include provisions for the electronic transmission of election results.

The five-member panel emphasized that the only mandatory technological tool for INEC to employ in the election was the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS).

Addressing the issue of non-compliance with the Electoral Act and INEC Regulations and Guidelines, Justice Tsammani clarified that the regulations did not mandate the BVAS to electronically transmit polling unit results.

The Tribunal further stated that the commission’s Results Viewing Portal (IReV) did not function as a collation system, aligning with the precedent set in the case of Oyetola Vs INEC.

Justice Tsammani concluded, “There is no provision for the electronic transmission of election results in the Electoral Act 2022. It is, at best, optional.”

‘Obi Failed To Prove INEC Refused To Promptly Upload Results Online’

Moreover, the Tribunal determined that the Labour Party and Obi did not succeed in proving that INEC deliberately delayed uploading polling unit results to its Results Viewing Portal (IReV) with the intention of manipulating the results in favor of the APC’s candidate, Tinubu.

“The petitioner heavily relied on the allegation of non-compliance. According to Section 135(2) of the Electoral Act, they are obligated to demonstrate how such non-compliance had a substantial impact. If they fail to establish this, the petition loses its grounds.”

Additionally, the petitioner raised allegations of result suppression, overvoting, and vote inflation, asserting that based on the entirety of the evidence, the elections were tainted by corrupt practices and thus rendered invalid.

‘Obi, LP Failed To Prove Tinubu Was Convicted For Money Laundering’

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the Labour Party and Obi were unable to substantiate their claim that Tinubu had been convicted for money laundering in the United States.

The panel asserted that there was no documented evidence of Tinubu’s arrest or conviction provided by the petitioners – Obi and the LP.

While it had been alleged that Tinubu forfeited $460,000 in the US over three decades ago, with accusations of involvement in drug trafficking and money laundering, the Tribunal ruled that no criminal charges were brought against Tinubu in the US, and he did not undergo a criminal trial in America.

The Tribunal emphasized that the petitioners did not succeed in demonstrating that the incident at the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, where the forfeiture occurred, was indeed a criminal case.

Justice Tsammani underscored that the former governor of Lagos State was never convicted of any crime or engaged in any criminal activity, with no sentence of imprisonment or fine imposed on him.

He further noted that, in accordance with Section 137 of the constitution, Tinubu is not disqualified from participating in the presidential election.

‘Atiku’s dual Citizenship Petition Against Tinubu Struck Out’

Turning to the PDP and Atiku, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ claim asserting that Tinubu held dual citizenship, which, according to them, should disqualify him from the election.

The panel also removed the testimony of certain witnesses for Atiku, citing that their sworn statements were not filed along with his petition. Additionally, the court excluded 37 exhibits submitted by these witnesses from the official court records.

Regarding the submission of documents to the court, it was noted that this factor would only impact the weight assigned to such evidence.

On the matters of Tinubu’s alleged conviction and dual citizenship, the Tribunal maintained its earlier stance, deeming these issues as legally invalid and subsequently striking them from the case.

Regarding the incapacity of election officials to transmit results electronically, out of the 27 witnesses brought forth by the petitioner, 10 were polling unit agents. They provided testimony on the conduct of the elections in their respective polling units.

All 10 witnesses attested that the voting process proceeded smoothly and without disturbances in their polling units. However, they unanimously reported their inability to electronically upload the results to INEC’s portal. Instead, they manually recorded and delivered the results to the ward or state collation center.

The witnesses emphasized that the voting process was conducted in an orderly manner, with party agents endorsing the results. The only challenge encountered was in electronically transmitting the results.

The Tribunal strongly emphasized that legal proceedings are based on the statements made in the pleadings, and the fate of parties depends on the strength of their submissions.

As for the allegations of disruptions by respondents’ agents during the elections, the petitioners had promised to provide video recordings as evidence, but failed to do so.

Issue two pertained to the 25 percent allocation in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and the court adhered to its previous ruling on the matter.

Issue three revolved around Tinubu’s eligibility due to an alleged indictment, but the petitioners did not present credible evidence before the court.