The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), which sat in Abuja, eventually rendered its verdict on September 6 on the three surviving petitions filed against the outcome of the February 25 presidential election won by the candidate of the All Progressives Party (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Shortly after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced the results of the election and returned Tinubu as the winner, aggrieved participants in the election filed petitions before the PEPC, seeking among others the nullification of the election.
When the curtain fell on the filing of petitions at the PEPC (21 days after the declaration of the results), five petitions were lodged before the court.
The petitions were filed by the Action Alliance (AA) and its presidential candidate Solomon David Okanigbuan; Action Peoples Party (APP) and its candidate Osita Nnadi; Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Labour Party (LP) and its candidate Peter Obi and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate Atiku Abubakar.
Two petitions (those by the AA and APP) did not make it to the stage of trial before they were withdrawn by the parties, leaving those of the APM, the LP and the PDP that were later consolidated and taken through the trial process, and on which a consolidated judgment was also rendered on September 6 by the court’s five-member panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani.
In delivering the judgment, the court adopted the format of first reading its ruling on the various preliminary objections raised by the respondents on each of the petitions before determining it (the petition) on its merits.
Obi/LP’s petition
Obi and LP’s petition had as respondents, INEC, Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima and the APC. It challenged the outcome of the election on three grounds.
They were that Tinubu was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election; that the election of Tinubu was invalid because of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and that the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) was not duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.
While ruling on the objections in this petition, the court categorised the preliminary objections into three groups – those seeking to strike out some paragraphs of the petition for being vague, generic and nebulous; those seeking to strike out the petition or some of its grounds, and those seeking to strike out the petitioners’ replies or some paragraphs of the replies.
The court upheld some of the issues raised in the objections and rejected others, some of which are outlined below.
Why PEPC struck out some paragraphs of the petition
The PEPC upheld some of the arguments by the respondents because the facts pleaded by the petitioners were unspecific, vague, and imprecise. It proceeded to strike out some paragraphs of the petition for violating the Electoral Act.
The court held: “The law is clearly settled that specifying the particular polling units or places where irregularities are alleged to have occurred are material particulars in an election petition, and averments in an election petition which allege irregularities and malpractices, but fail to specify the polling units or places where the irregularities or malpractices occurred, are bereft of material particulars, and such averments are incompetent and liable to be struck out.
“A look at the averments in the petitioners’ petition shows that the petitioners have only alleged various irregularities and malpractices, but failed to specify the particular polling units or specific places where the alleged irregularities and malpractices have occurred.”
The court noted, for instance, paragraphs 60 and 61 of the petition where the petitioners alleged that INEC suppressed the actual scores they obtained by deliberately uploading blurred Form EC8As on the INEC Result Viewing platform (IReV) in 18,088 polling units, but failed to specify the polling units. They only stated that they would rely on a spreadsheet containing the polling unit codes and details of the 18,088 polling units, as well as the authentic results in the said polling units.
The court also noted that in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the petition, where the petitioners alleged that INEC embarked on “massive misrepresentation and manipulation by uploading fictitious results in polling units where there were no elections,” they also failed to specify the polling units where they alleged there were no elections, the incorrect results that were uploaded and which were the correct results.
It held that it was only in paragraphs 62 and 64 where the petitioners alleged that INEC suppressed their lawful votes and inflated the votes of Tinubu and the APC in Rivers and Benue states, that they gave figures of the votes allegedly suppressed for the petitioners and those purportedly inflated for Tinubu and the APC and also stated what they claimed to be the actual figures scored by them and by the 2nd and 4th respondents.
The court declared that in a presidential election which was held in 176,846 polling units, 8,809 wards, 774 Local Government Areas, 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, “it is unimaginable that averments in a petition, which merely allege irregularities and or malpractices, without specifying the particular polling units or particular collation centres where the irregularities or malpractices have allegedly taken place, will be regarded as proper merely because the respondent has not requested for further particulars.”
Inconsistent pleadings
On INEC’s request that some paragraphs of the petition and certain reliefs be struck off on grounds of inconsistency, the court upheld the contention by the petitioners that they could plead conflicting facts in so far as they have claimed alternative reliefs.
It held, among others, that “the settled law is that reliefs can be sought in the alternative and where so sought by a party, he is at liberty to plead conflicting facts in line with the alternative reliefs he has sought.”
Challenge to Obi’s locus standi
Tinubu, Shettima and the APC had argued that since Obi’s name was not on the register of members submitted by the LP to INEC 30 days before the election as required by Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 he lacked the locus standi to challenge the outcome of the election.
The court, in rejecting this ground of objection, held: “The courts have consistently held in a plethora of cases that the issue of membership of a political party is an internal affair of the political party. It is not justiciable and the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain same.
“The provision of Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which only mandates every political party to submit the register of its members 30 days before its party primaries cannot be invoked by the respondents for the purpose of challenging the 1st petitioner’s (Obi’s) membership of the 2nd petitioner (LP).
“It is only the 2nd petitioner that has the sole prerogative of determining who are its members, and having sponsored the 1st petitioner as its candidate for the presidential election, the 1st petitioner has satisfied the requirement of being a member of the 2nd petitioner as provided for in Section 131(c) of the 1999 Constitution. It is not within the rights of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents to question the 1st petitioner’s membership of the 2nd petitioner,” the court said.
Obi and LP’s non-joinder of Atiku, PDP as parties
Tinubu, Shettima and the APC had queried the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the petition as constituted because Atiku Abubakar and the PDP (who came second) were not made respondents to the petition.
The court rejected this argument on the grounds that only statutory respondents provided in Section 133 of the Electoral Act are necessary parties to a petition, adding that the petitioners were not under any obligation to join Atiku and his party.
It added: “By the import of Section 133 of the Electoral Act, 2022, the contest in an election petition is strictly between the petitioner who challenges the outcome of the election, the person who was declared the winner of the election, and the commission that conducted and declared the outcome of the election.
“This means that every candidate who lost the election and who is desirous of challenging the outcome of the election is expected to file his own petition against the winner of the election, and in so doing, he is not required to join any other candidate who lost the election like himself.
“In this case, Abubakar Atiku and Peoples Democratic Party, who were only runners-up in the presidential elections, are not necessary parties, as they are not statutory respondents to this petition, and the petitioners herein have no obligation to join them in this petition.”
Introduction of new facts in petitioner’s reply to respondents’ replies
The court agreed with the respondents that the introduction of new facts in some paragraphs of the petitioner’s reply violated Paragraph 16(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act as it amounted to an attempt to amend or add to the petition.
“The law, as encapsulated in Paragraph 16(1)(a) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act… forbids new additions or amendments by a petitioner which are not contained in their petition because such new additions or amendments will prejudice the respondents and breach the respondents’ fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, since the respondents will have no opportunity to respond to those new additions or amendments.”
Rejection of 10 of the petitioners’ 13 witnesses
The PEPC upheld the respondents’ argument that 10 out of the 13 witnesses called by Obi and the LP did not have their written statements on oath filed along with the petition, a development they argued, violated Paragraph 4(5) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022.
It also agreed with them that the documents tendered through the 10 witnesses could not also be admitted because they were not front-loaded as required by the electoral law.
The court held that the firm position of the law is that by the combined provisions of Section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution, Section 132(7) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and Paragraphs 4(5) and (6) and 14(2) of the 1st Schedule to the Act, every written statement on oath of the witnesses which a party intends to call must be filed along with the petition within the time limited by Section 285(5} of the Constitution and Section 132(7) of the Electoral Act, 2022…
“It is pertinent to observe that the above 10 witnesses subpoenaed by the petitioners were all witnesses who were available to the petitioners at the time of filing the petition.
They are neither subpoenaed as adversaries nor subpoenaed as official witnesses.
“It is therefore beyond controversy that the witness statements on oath of those witnesses filed after the time limit for presentation of the petition had elapsed, are incompetent and the said witnesses had no vires to testify in this petition. Their testimonies as embodied in their respective witness statements on oath, being incompetent, are accordingly struck out,” the court said.
The court also rejected petitioners’ witnesses and their evidence on grounds of being persons interested. It found that some of them were persons interested under Section 91(3) of the Evidence Act, who are not detached from the case, but stand to benefit from its outcome.
It noted that PW4, who described himself as an expert, was contracted before the election to carry out data analysis on the results of the presidential election; PW7 who was presented as an expert witness and claimed to be a Cloud Engineer and staff of Amazon Web Services (AWS), was a member of the LP, who contested the House of Representatives seat in Cross River State as an LP candidate; PW8 said he was a cyber security expert, who admitted to have equally been contracted by the petitioners to produce a report during the pendency of the case.
Rejection of petitioners’ contention that subpoenaed witnesses were those of the court
On this issue, the court noted: “The petitioners have tried to argue that the said witnesses are witnesses of this court. With respect, this argument is misconceived, because the subpoenas in respect of those witnesses were issued upon the request of the petitioners.
“The applications for the issuance of the subpoenas were duly filed at the Registry of this court by the petitioners’ counsel and the requisite fees, including filing fees and service fees, as assessed, were duly paid by them, before this court approved and issued the subpoenas.
“Therefore, those witnesses are the petitioners’ witnesses and not witnesses of this court. Indeed, the procedure for calling of witnesses by the court is by summons as stipulated in Paragraph 42(1) of the 15th Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.
Rejection of 18,088 blurred result sheets
The petitioners had, while justifying their failure to specify the polling units to which the 18,088 blurred result sheets it tendered related, claimed it was impossible because they were unreadable.
The court however found that the petitioners deliberately refused to specify the polling units to which the blurred result sheets, which it tendered through PW4, who claimed to have downloaded them from INEC ReV, related.
The court noted that PW4, who testified that the primary source of the data he used to produce the report of the analysis of the election results for the petitioners was the IReV portal, was silent on how he was able to determine the particular polling units and the impacted votes, accredited voters and number of PVCs collected.
While also noting that PW4’s report was concluded on March 19, a day before the petitioners filed their petition, the court held that it was obvious that Obi and his party were aware of the polling units to which their complaints related before they filed the petition.
Viewed from another perspective, the court wondered why the petitioners, who claimed it had agents across the country that signed result sheets after the election and obtained copies, could not rely on the copies given to their agents to identify the polling units to which the blurred result sheets related.
“So, their theory of ‘impossibility’ which they invented around the 18,088 blurred results is misconceived and an obvious misadventure.
“Having clearly admitted that their agents signed and collected duplicate copies of the result sheets, their contention that they are unable to determine the polling units from which the blurred results emanated is untrue.
“In fact, this admission reinforces the need for the petitioners to specify all the polling units in respect of which they have made complaints since their agents were availed with copies of the results of the polling units.”
In determining the petition by Obi and the LP on its merits, the court identified four issues:
1. Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 137 of the Constitution, Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the evidence before the court, the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) were qualified to contest the presidential election of February 25, 2023.
2. Whether having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the petitioners have established that there was substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and that the non-compliance substantially affected the results of the election.
3. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced, the petitioners have proven that the presidential election held on February 25, 2023, was invalid by reason of corrupt practices.
4. Whether from the evidence adduced the petitioners have established that the 2nd respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
$460,000 question and why Tinubu, Shettima were qualified to contest
The petitioners had argued that Tinubu was not qualified under Section 137 of the Construction, to contest the election on grounds that he was allegedly fined $460,000 by a United States district court in relation to an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking.
They also claimed that Shettima was not qualified under the provision of Section 35 of the Electoral Act on the ground that he allegedly had a double nomination.
The respondents, however, argued that the issue about whether Shettima had double nomination or not had been settled in the judgment by the Supreme Court delivered on May 26 in the appeal marked: SC/CV/501/2023 between the PDP v. INEC & 3 others.
They argued that the apex court having held that Shettima had no double nomination, the petitioners could no longer raise such issue again under any guise.
The court agreed with the respondents that “the legal position as determined by the Supreme Court in PDP v. INEC (supra), clearly shows that the petitioners in this case who belong to a different political party from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents (Tinubu, Shettima and the APC) have no locus to complain about the nomination of the 3rd respondent.
“Hence, they cannot use same to challenge the qualification of the 2nd and 3rd respondents to contest the Presidential election.
“On the petitioners’ allegation of double nomination of the 3rd respondent, the Supreme Court specifically held in PDP v INEC & 3 ORS (supra), that there was no such double nomination.”
The court equality agreed with the respondents’ lawyers, including Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN (for Tinubu and Shettima) that the order from the US court emanated from what could be classified as a non-conviction based forfeiture, which is a forfeiture not associated with criminal conviction and sentencing.
It held: “A careful perusal of Exhibit PA5, relied upon by the petitioners, shows that the case was in the civil docket of the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois and it was a civil forfeiture proceeding against funds in specified accounts with First Heritage Bank and Citibank N.A. Exhibit PA5 is actually an action in rem against the funds with First Heritage Bank and Citibank. It is not an action in personam against the 2nd respondent.”
Relying on some earlier decisions by the Supreme, the PEPC held that the “sentence of imprisonment or fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud” envisaged in Section 137(1)(d) of the Constitution is one imposed upon a criminal trial and conviction.
It added: “In the instant case, the petitioners have failed to show evidence that the 2nd respondent was indicted or charged, arraigned, tried and convicted, and was sentenced to any term of imprisonment or fine for any particular offence.”
The court further held that since, in both Paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 137(1) of the Constitution, a sentence for the offence involving dishonesty is mentioned, “but in Paragraph (e) a limitation of ten years has been introduced, then it means in respect of sentence for offence of dishonesty, the two paragraphs must be read together, such that for conviction and sentence for an offence involving dishonesty, it must be within a period of less than ten years before the date of the election in order for such a conviction and sentence to be used for disqualifying a presidential candidate from contesting the election.”
The court equally held that even if it was a criminal conviction in a foreign country, the provision of Section 249(1)&(2) of the Evidence Act must be complied with to effectively establish such conversation in Nigeria.
It held: “The petitioners have evidently failed to establish their allegation that the 2nd respondent is disqualified from contesting the presidential election under Section 137(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution because he was fined the sum of $460,000.00 by US District Court, Northern District of Illinois.
“As shown above, the order of forfeiture in Exhibit PA5 on which the petitioners have relied does not qualify as a sentence or fine for an offence involving dishonesty or fraud within the contemplation of Section 137(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution.
“From all the foregoing, it is clear that having regard to the provisions of Section 137 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and the evidence led before this court, the 2nd respondent was not disqualified from contesting the presidential election held on 25th February 2023.”
Petitioners’ allegation of substantial non-compliance with Electoral Act
The petitioners had argued in their petition that INEC “was mandatorily required to electronically transmit or transfer the results of the polling units directly to its collation system” and equally “mandatory required to use the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) to upload a scanned copy of the Form EC8A to the 1st respondent’s (INEC’s) result viewing portal (IReV) in real-time.”
INEC and the other respondents denied that the electoral body ever had an electronic collation system; that collation was done manually and that INEC’s plan to upload scanned copies of the Form EC8A directly from the polling units in real time was frustrated by the glitch experienced on its system in relation to the presidential election.
In resolving this issue, the court held among others, that contrary to the petitioners’ claim, no law mandates INEC to electronically transmit or collate election results.
It noted that a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 filed by the LP against INEC on the same issue was decided against the political party in a judgment rendered on January 23, 2023, by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
It added: “With the judgment of the Federal High Court in Exhibit X1, the excerpt of which has been reproduced above, it is evident that the Federal High Court had decided the issue against the petitioners herein, by holding that the 1st respondent cannot be compelled to electronically transmit election results.
“There is no evidence before this court that the 2nd petitioner (the LP) against whom the judgment in Exhibit X1 was given has appealed against that decision.
“It is settled law that unappealed decision of a court remains subsisting and binding upon the parties. It is also trite that the doctrine of issue estoppel is that where an issue has been decided by a competent court, the court will not allow it to be re-litigated by the same or different parties.”
The court also took note of a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos in an appeal marked: CA/LAG/CV/332/2023 where the court upheld the decision by Justice Nwite.
The appeal was filed by the APC against a judgment obtained by the LP from the Lagos division of the Federal High Court after it (the LP) lost before Justice Nwite.
The PEPC added: “By virtue of Section 122(2) of the Evidence Act, this court is entitled to take judicial notice of the decision in appeal No. CA/LAG/CV/332/2023: APC v Labour Party & 42 others. Not only that, this court is, by the doctrine of precedent, bound by that decision.
“Since the above judicial pronouncements have decided that, under the Electoral Act and INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, the 1st respondent (INEC) cannot be compelled to electronically transmit election results, the petitioners are clearly estopped by those decisions from contending in ground two of this petition that the 1st respondent is mandatorily required to electronically transmit the election results to the collation system.”
Despite finding that the petitioners’ claim of non-compliance hinged on a wrong footing, the court still proceeded to consider it on the merits by examining all the evidence led on this issue.
In the end, the court found that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof required of them under the law.
The court found that not only did the petitioners field wrong witnesses, who tendered mostly inadmissible documents, their letters to INEC to request the release of election materials were wrongly addressed.
It added: “A look at the letters in Exhibits PCQ1 – PCQ6 shows that they were all addressed to the Chairman of INEC instead of the Resident Electoral Commissioners in the states as required of the petitioners by Section 74(1) of the Electoral Act, 2023. It is therefore clear that the petitioners have failed to follow the clear legal procedures for requesting for those documents.
“More so, when the record shows that the subpoenas which they claimed to have served upon the 1st respondent (INEC) were also served on the Chairman of the 1st respondent and, as stated by the officer who answered the subpoena, same was served only the previous day to her appearance in court.”
The court, while resolving this issue against the petitioners, held: “It is therefore clear from the above that the petitioners were unable to establish their allegation of non-compliance by INEC with Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, 2023.
“The evidence PW12 and Exhibits PCQ1 to PCQ6 have not been able to rebut the presumption of regularity which inures to the 1st respondent under the law, which can only be rebutted with cogent and credible evidence.”
The court further held that from the totality of the evidence adduced on this issue by the petitioners, they “failed to prove substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.”
About their claim that the presidential election was invalid because of corrupt practices, the petitioners made allegations of suppression of scores, unlawful reduction and inflation of results, among others. The petitioners claimed, among others, that the 18,088 blurred result sheets were created by INEC to suppress their lawful votes in the polling units to which the blurred result sheet related.
In its judgment, the court held that the blurred result sheets, which the petitioners claimed to have downloaded from IReV were not certified and therefore, not admissible.
The court found that the petitioners fell short of the level of proof required of them under the law, noting for instance, that the petitioners, who alleged falsification of results, failed to present two sets of results – one genuine and the other false – as required under the law.
It noted that while the petitioners promised to call 50 witnesses to prove their case, they ended up calling only 13, out of which only three – PW1, 3 and 12 – had their statements filed along with the petition as required.
It held: “Of the 13 witnesses they called, only two are presiding officers, who were present at their polling units. Hence the petitioners have not been able to establish any of those malpractices which they alleged.
“The evidence of the witnesses which the petitioners called as experts to try to establish that the 1st respondent is mandatorily required to transmit election results for purposes of collation or to link the delay in the upload of the presidential election results to IReV by the 1st respondent to any of the malpractices which they alleged, are devoid of any value. The petitioners’ allegations have remained mere speculations.”
Claim of mandatory 25 per cent votes in the FCT
On the fourth issue, the petitioners claimed that Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election because he allegedly did not score up to 25 percent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The petitioners had claimed that the provision of Section 134(2)(b) of the Construction made it mandatory that a candidate in a presidential election must score a minimum of 1/4 or 25 percent of the votes in the FCT to be lawfully declared a winner.
But the court agreed with the respondents that the FCT lacked any special status in computing presidential results as claimed by the petitioners.
It held that contrary to the position of the petitioners, by the express provisions of Section 299, the provisions of the entire Constitution shall apply to the FCT as if it were one of the States of the Federation.
This, it said, implies that Section 134(2)(b) of the same Constitution, requiring a presidential candidate to poll at least a quarter of the votes cast in two-thirds of the states of the federation in order to be returned elected, means nothing more than that the FCT shall be taken into account in calculating the said two-third of the states of the federation.
The court added, “In other words, the FCT is no more than one of the states of the federation for the purpose of that calculation. Nothing more than that can be implied or inferable from Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution.”
It added that if the framers of the Constitution had wanted to make scoring one-quarter of votes cast in the FCT a specific requirement for the return of a presidential candidate, they would have made that intention plain by using words that clearly separate the scoring of one-quarter of votes in the FCT as a distinct requirement.
It added: “As expressly stated in Section 299 of the Constitution, for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution for the return of a presidential candidate as duly elected, the FCT is to be treated as one of the states in the calculation of two-third of the states of the federation, such that if the candidate polls 25 percent or one-quarter of the votes in two-thirds of 37 states of the federation (FCT Abuja inclusive), the presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected, even if he fails to secure 25 percent of the votes cast in the FCT, as the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) did.”
The court declared that, in a presidential election, polling one quarter or 25 percent of total votes cast in the FCT is not a separate precondition for a candidate to be deemed as duly elected under Section 134 of the Constitution.
Atiku/PDP’s petition
Listed as respondents in the petition by Atiku and the PDP were INEC, Tinubu and the APC.
The petition challenged election on four grounds – “the election of the 2nd respondent is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022; the election of the 2nd respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices; the 2nd respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election, and that the 2nd respondent was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election.
While ruling on the preliminary objections, the court also struck out some portions of this petition, rejected some witnesses and a number of documents tendered.
Vague pleadings, non-frontloading of documents.
As it did in the petition by Obi and his party, the court found, in most instances, that Atiku and the PDP made allegations of irregularities, malpractices and corrupt practices without supplying the necessary particulars and facts to support their claims as required under Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.
It also found that, although the petitioners claimed that the particulars of their allegations were contained in the report produced by their statistician, the statistician’s report was not front-loaded and filed along with the petition as required by the Electoral Act.
The court said: “A statistician’s report that is supposed to contain missing particulars in a petition but which was only filed in the middle of hearing of the same petition, long after the time for exchange of pleadings had closed and even after petitioners had called as many as 16 witnesses in proof of their case, as happened in this case, cannot serve that purpose of audi alteram partem (let the other party be heard too).
“In short, the tactics employed by the petitioners in this case as regards their pleading and the statistician’s report referenced in it is, to say the least, most unfair and definitely negates the current practice regime that emphasizes frontloading of processes.
“Such dishonourable practice can only be likened to the unlawful boxing tactic of hitting one’s opponent below the belt or from behind, which in the sport of boxing, is penalised promptly with a deduction of points.
“It cannot be different here. The said Statistician’s Reports, which is Exhibits PAH1, PAH2, PAH3 and PAH4 in this proceeding, must be and is hereby discountenanced. That conclusion should make the resolution of this issue on the imprecision of the petition fairly easy.”
Non-inclusion of Obi and Kwankwaso
INEC had argued that since the petitioners prayed the court to void the results in Lagos and Kano states won by Obi and Kwankwaso they ought to be made parties to the petition.
The court upheld the petitioners’ argument that both presidential candidates were not necessarily parties to the petition.
On the suit filed at Supreme Court by six PDP states to stop the election process.
The APC had argued that the substance of the petition was the same as the suit, marked: SC/CV/354/2023 filed by the Attorneys General of the six PDP-controlled states, to challenge INEC’s alleged failure to electronically transmit results from the polling units, was the same as the petition, and therefore amounted to an abuse of court process.
The court agreed with the petitioners that the suit cannot qualify as an abuse of process because they could not be blamed for the action of the plaintiffs states – Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo and Sokoto states – noting that the suit was even withdrawn before the petition was filed.
Rejection of petitioners’ evidence on Tinubu’s alleged non-qualification
The court, in upholding the respondents’ objection to the late introduction of evidence on the US forfeiture case, alleged dual citizenship and questions about his academic history, held that the evidence was introduced in violation of Paragraph 16(1)(a) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act.
It added: “No details whatsoever were given by them (petitioners) of what they meant by 2nd respondent’s non-qualification in their petition… it is now, through their reply that petitioners, who themselves seemed to have had no clear idea of what they meant by 2nd respondent’s non-qualification for the election or simply deliberately kept it back when filing their petition, want to now introduce through their reply at a time when respondents have no further right of responding to them.
“Such unfair tactics cannot, and is not, allowed by our law. Still, on this issue, I must also not fail to point out that the petitioners were only being clever by half when they claimed in paragraph 2.1 (b) of their reply that they were simply giving, as they put it, ‘further details’ of the non-qualification of 2nd respondent by averring to the conviction, fine, certificate forgery and dual citizenship of 2nd respondent that they raised in their replies.
