THE Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) against the victory of President Bola Tinubu in the February 25 election.
In a unanimous ruling, the court described both petitions as incompetent and lacking in merit.
Abubakar and Obi had sought the nullification of the Tinubu’s victory over alleged irregularities and the presentation of forged academic certificates by the President.
While addressing the first issue in Atiku’s appeal. the Supreme Court panel headed by Justice Inyang Okoro concluded that the election’s outcome was unaffected by the failure of the Independent National Electoral.Commission (INEC) to transmit the results electronically. Thus, the presidential election could not be declared void.
The apex court further concluded that Abubakar failed to present any alternative presidential election results that would have proved he had a majority of votes – more than what INEC announced for Tinubu.
On a motion filed by Abubakar seeking to file fresh evidence, specifically the Chicago State University (CSU) records of President Tinubu, the court said the time fixed for tendering of evidence had passed and couldn’t be extended.
“The 180 days imposed for hearing of election petitions is immutable and cannot be extended.
“The application, my lord, is hereby refused and dismissed”, Okoro stated.
The apex court said the motion could not be granted.
The Supreme Court further upheld the ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that a candidate does not need to get at least 25 per cent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to be declared as the country’s president.
Therefore, finding that all the appeals lacked substance, the Supreme Court decided the seven concerns that were reduced to a single point in Tinubu’s favour.
The court also dismissed the appeal filed by Obi challenging Tinubu’s victory.
In a decision read by Okoro, the panel summarily dismissed the appeal, stating that it raised many of the same arguments as Abubakar’s prior appeal, which the court had rejected.
The court declared in a unanimous decision that it had already addressed the only distinct issue in Obi’s appeal—the claim that Kashim Shettima was nominated for vice president and senator in the February election—and could not be reopened.
The Supreme Court had fixed Thursday, October 26, to deliver its final verdict on the petition filed by Abubakar and Obi, on Wednesday, October 25, after the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) petition was struck out.
The two petitions were challenging President Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the last presidential election.
The ICIR reported that the Supreme Court reserved judgment in the petition by Abubakar, seeking to void Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the February 25, 2023 presidential election.
A seven-man panel of the Supreme Court led by Okoro on Monday, October 23, disclosed the reservation of the judgment after taking arguments from lawyers in the matter.
Through his lawyers, led by Chris Uche, Abubakar argued at the court that Tinubu should be sacked from the 2023 presidential race.
According to Abubakar, Tinubu was not eligible to run for office at the time specified by the Constitution.
Uche requested that the Supreme Court apply the Constitution’s provisions to nullify Tinubu’s election results.
He claimed that Tinubu had forged certificates and lied under oath..
Atiku pleaded with the court to request a rerun between him and Tinubu if the President was not disqualified.
The former Vice President had accused Tinubu of forging certificates and lying on oath. However, Tinubu, through his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, requested that the court dismiss the accusations.
Supreme Court also deferred ruling on Obi’s appeal after dismissing the APM appeal.
While adopting his written briefs, the lawyer to Obi and LP, Livy Uzoukwu, prayed to the court to allow the appeal and grant the reliefs sought.
THE Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Wednesday, September 6, affirmed President Tinubu’s victory as the February 25 presidential election winner.
Tinubu, who contested under the All Progressives Congress (APC), defeated his main contestants, Abubakar and Obi, to emerge victorious.
Obi, Atiku and APM disagreed with the result declared by INEC and challenged Tinubu’s victory in court.
PEPC Judgement
After months of rigorous hearing, the court on Wednesday, September 6, affirmed Tinubu as the duly elected President of Nigeria.
Delivering judgment on the matter, the court said Obi’s case lacked merit.
The court ruled that INEC could not be obliged to send election results to its IREV electronically after rejecting Obi and the LP’s claims of significant non-compliance with Electoral Act requirements.
The court determined that the LP and Obi’s claims of numerous anomalies, voter suppression, and corrupt practices lacked adequate evidence and were unpersuasive.
The judges threw away ten witnesses’ statements presented by LP and described them as inadmissible.
Regarding Obi’s case concerning Tinubu’s forfeiture of $460,000 to the United States government, the tribunal said it was a civil matter, not a criminal one.
The court also pointed out that the LP had not shown proof of Tinubu’s arrest, trial, penalties, or punishment for any crimes.
According to the PEPC, the allegations are not enough to invalidate the entire result of the poll.
On the controversial issue of 25 per cent in FCT, the court declared that no candidate needed to secure 25 per cent in FCT to be declared winner.
Additionally, it determined that President Tinubu was intellectually qualified to run for president, noting that deciding to disqualify him based only on his academic credentials was insufficient.
In Abubakar’s case, the court determined that he had not sufficiently shown that he received the majority of valid votes in his case.
The panel stated in the lead ruling, read by Moses Ugo, that PDP had neglected to specify the affected polling units, the locations where the ballot boxes were allegedly stolen, and the methods used to manipulate the BVAS machines.
The panel’s chair, Tsammani, also stated that the PDP’s claims of violence and vote box snatching lacked supporting videos and documentation, adding that these claims were criminal and required proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the APM case, bothering the double nomination against Shettima, the PEPC struck it out and described it as incompetent.
However, dissatisfied with the Tribunal judgement, Abubakar, Obi, and the APM headed to the Supreme Court.
A reporter with the ICIR
A Journalist with a niche for quality and a promoter of good governance