By Deborah Onyofufeke, Abuja
The presidential candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Mr Peter Obi, have asked the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal sitting at the Court of Appeal in Abuja to dismiss the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) petition against them.
Atiku in his petition said INEC failed on its regulations to make use of its multifunctional technology, known as BVAS for both accreditation and transmitting results electronically from the polling unit in real-time directly to the I-Rev portal.
The former vice president urged the Tribunal to dismiss INEC’s objections and averments contained in its reply to his petition and grant the reliefs sought in his petition.
He held that the president-elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was not qualified to have contested the 2023 election, alleging that he acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Guinea which constitutionally makes him unqualified to contest for the office of the President of Nigeria.
Atiku added that Tinubu allegedly forfeited 460,000 US dollars owing to deals in narcotics and ought not to contest elections in Nigeria.
He further argued that the 2023 presidential election was allegedly rigged because as of the date of filing his reply dated April 20, 2023, “not all polling units’ results had been uploaded unto the INEC Results Viewing portal (IReV).”
This was contained in Atiku’s reply to INEC which had urged the PEPT, in its preliminary objection to dismiss his petition for lacking in merit.
Atiku, through his team of lawyers, stated, in his petition that INEC under the guise of “technical glitches’ allegedly rigged the 2023 presidential election in favour of Bola Tinubu by refusing to immediately transmit results electronically from polling units to the INEC Results Viewing Portal, in line with relevant guidelines.
Atiku urged the Tribunal to discountenance the objections of INEC and grant his prayers which among other things, seeks the nullification of INEC’s declaration of Tinubu as president-elect.
INEC’s lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), however, held that Atiku Abubakar neither scored the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election nor scored not less than one-quarter of the lawful votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory and therefore, not entitled to be returned as the winner of the presidential election conducted on February 25, 2023.
Similarly, Obi and his party, in their response said INEC, forgetting its role as an electoral umpire, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to challenge the alleged incompetence of the petition and added that the global best practice for electoral umpires in national elections is to avoid creating the impression that it has no respect for neutrality in an electoral contest between candidates.
Obi and his party said in their reply that, INEC is expected to maintain a neutral stance in all litigation where participants in elections are challenging the outcome of the elections and not indulge in filing objections to the Petition.
“The pleading in the 1st Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection that the allegation in paragraph 20 (ii) of the Petition is defective and does not disclose a cause of action, is wishful thinking. The specific particulars of non-compliance complained of which substantially affected the outcome of the election are as pleaded in paragraphs 33 to 78 of the petition.
“The Petitioners further aver that Reliefs 3, 5(i) and 5(ii) of the Petition are grantable and are amply supported by the detailed particulars of non-compliance alleged in the petition,” they averred.
The petitioners urged the Tribunal to strike out and or dismiss the INEC’s Notice of Preliminary Objection.
In response to the new issues introduced in paragraphs 4(iii), (iv), and (v) of INEC’s reply to the Petition, Obi and his party stated that “the Petitioners’ Agents were at the polling units during the conduct of the election.
Unfortunately, the 1st Respondent’s officials at the polling units failed and neglected to give clear copies of the result of the election in the polling units (Forms EC 8A) to the Petitioners’ Agents, as the pink copies given to the Petitioners Agents were very faint and unreadable”.
They also insisted that, until there is a valid substitution of a candidate by a political party, the status quo remains, and therefore, the submission of Sen. Kashim Shettima’s Form EC 9 as Vice-Presidential Candidate of the APC did not automatically abrogate his subsisting nomination as Senatorial Candidate for the Senatorial election for Borno Central Senatorial District.
“As of 14th July 2022 when the 3rd Respondent was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate of the 4th Respondent, the 3rd Respondent was still the Senatorial candidate of the 4th Respondent for the Borno Central Senatorial District, his name not having been withdrawn by the 4th Respondent as stipulated by Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“Central Senatorial District is a Constituency for a Senatorial election. Likewise, the entire Federation is a Constituency for election for the office of President and Vice President.
“Until there is a valid substitution of a candidate by a political party, the status quo remains and therefore the submission of the 3rd Respondent’s Form EC 9 as Vice-Presidential Candidate of the 4th Respondent did not automatically abrogate his subsisting nomination as Senatorial Candidate for the Senatorial election for Borno Central Senatorial District”.
“The petitioners aver that in the 1st Respondent’s unlawful invention of “technological glitches” by which results of the election were misrepresented, the actual scores of the Petitioners were suppressed, omitted, miscalculated, and deducted as shown in the reports and forensic analysis pleaded in the petition.”
They argued that INEC’s reply to their Petition in its entirety is without merit and should be discontinued in its entirety.
