The Presidency expressed strong confidence last night that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's election victory would be upheld by the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in a judgment scheduled for tomorrow.
In a parallel development, Peter Obi, the Labour Party's candidate in the February 25 presidential election, expressed optimism that the evidence presented to the court would lead to a reversal of the results announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Both the President and his challenger made these statements following the tribunal's announcement of the judgment delivery date.
The PEPC, in a statement signed by Umar Bangari, the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, confirmed that the judgment would be issued on Wednesday, September 6, 2023. To promote transparency, the tribunal announced that interested television stations would broadcast the judgment live for the public's benefit. Access to the courtroom would be limited to accredited individuals, including legal representatives and political party representatives. The general public was encouraged to watch the proceedings from the comfort of their homes.
In the February election, President Tinubu secured 8,794,726 votes, defeating Atiku, who received 6,984,520 votes, and Obi, who garnered 6,101,533 votes. The presidential tribunal comprises Justice Haruna Tsammani, Justice Stephen Adah, Justice Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Justice Moses Ugo, and Justice Abba Mohammed.
Earlier on August 1, the parties' legal representatives had presented their final written addresses and made their concluding arguments. The petition filed by Atiku and the PDP was addressed during the morning session, which ended at noon, while Obi and the LP's petition was discussed in the afternoon session, concluding around 5:30 pm.
The respondents' legal teams, including Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) for INEC, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) for President Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima, and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for the All Progressives Congress (APC), urged the court to dismiss the petitions, asserting they lacked merit. They argued that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims with adequate evidence.
Mahmoud pointed out that Atiku and Obi's petitions were based on incorrect assumptions, emphasizing that their claims of electronic collation were unfounded. He clarified that INEC utilized manual collation, and the uploading of results to the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) portal was for public access, not collation purposes. Mahmoud also dismissed the alleged interference during the transmission of presidential election results as a routine system error.
Olanipekun challenged the petitioners' assertion that a presidential candidate must score 25 percent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to win, describing it as absurd. He contended that the FCT should be treated as the 37th state for presidential elections, and even if the FCT's results were canceled, it would not prevent INEC from declaring a winner. Olanipekun argued that Tinubu met and exceeded the 25 percent requirement.
Fagbemi characterized Obi and the LP's petition as "ambitious" and argued that the issue of double nomination had been addressed by the Supreme Court. He also refuted claims that Tinubu was unqualified to contest, asserting that the civil forfeiture relied upon did not constitute disqualification grounds under the Constitution.
The petitioners' legal counsel, Chris Uche (SAN) for Atiku and the PDP and Livy Uzoukwu (SAN) for Obi and the LP, urged the court to uphold their petitions, claiming they had presented substantial evidence to support their cases. They argued that INEC had not complied with electoral regulations and that the election was manipulated.
It is worth noting that the court's decision is not final, and dissatisfied parties can still appeal to the Supreme Court. The outcome of the presidential tribunal is expected to set the tone for the Supreme Court's final decision, whether in concurrence or disagreement.
0 Comments