The presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr. Peter
Obi, has listed 50 grounds on which the judgment of the Presidential Election
Petition Court (PEPC) which upheld the victory of President Bola Tinubu should
not be allowed to stand.
The PEPC had in a judgment delivered on September 6
dismissed the petition challenging the declaration of Tinubu of All
Progressives Congress, APC as winner of the February 25 presidential election.
The panel held that the former Anambra State Governor and
his party failed to substantiate their allegations that the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not follow laid down guidelines and
regulations in the conduct of the election.
But in the notice of appeal filed by his lead counsel, Dr
Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Obi said the judges of the
PEPC were wrong in their conclusion that his petition did not specify the
particular polling units where the alleged irregularities and malpractices he
complained of occurred.
Obi and his party said details of the polling units where
the malpractices occurred were contained in the spreadsheets and forensic
analysis reports contained in the petitions they submitted to the tribunal.
Also, Obi and LP faulted the PEPC’s decision to strike out
of certain paragraphs in their petition.
According to them, the decision amounted to a blatant denial
of their right to a fair hearing and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.
In the same vein, they faulted the decision of PEPC to
strike statements of 10 out of the 13 witnesses they called during proceedings
on the ground that the statements were filed after the expiration of the period
of 21 days prescribed by the constitution.
The petitioners said the action was against precedents set
in many previous cases at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court that a
subpoenaed witness did not need to file his statement alongside the petition
and that any such statement filed after the time allowed for filing the
petition was competent and valid.
The petitioners also faulted claim in the judgment of the
PEPC that they did not call enough witnesses to prove allegations of corrupt
practices and other irregularities in their petitions.
The petitioners also said the claim by PEPC that they did
not call witnesses from the polling units, wards or other places, where
irregularities and malpractices were alleged to have occurred because the issue
of non-compliance by INEC to its laws, guidelines and relevant statutes was a
universal complaint and an infraction against the Nigerian people and the
Nigerian state.
“The court below failed to take into account that the
appellants listed the states and specific areas complained about in the
petition. The appellants also tendered documents in satisfaction of Section 137
of the Electoral Act 2022.”
Also, contrary to the the judgment of the PEPC, the
petitioners said the use of technology in the conduct of the poll was pivotal
to the integrity/credibility and transparency of the election.
The appellants also argued that use of BVAS to transmit the
election results to IReV under the Electoral Act 2022 was mandatory and not
discretionary, contrary to the ruling of the court.
The petitioners also faulted the failure of the PEPC to
assume jurisdiction on the issue of disqualification based on the alleged
double-nomination of his vice president.
They argued that they were able to prove their case of
double-nomination of the vice president (Kashim Shettima) with the law and
evidence they tendered in the court.
According to the petitioners, the tribunal misapplied the
provisions of Section 137(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) when it
ruled that Tinubu cannot be disqualified from contesting the presidential
election because of forfeiture order made against him by the US District Court.
They faulted claim by the court that there was no evidence
that Tinubu had been arrested, charged, and convicted by a court of law to
warrant his disqualification from contesting the election.
Obi and LP also faulted the decision of the court that
contrary to their claim, a presidential candidate did not need to score at
least 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT to be declared winner of the
election, arguing that the PEPC introduced and relied on extraneous
matters/considerations in its interpretation of Section 134(2) of the 1999
Constitution (as amended).
They argued that this was because the issue they put before
the court was not whether or not the FCT had a “special status” over other states;
or whether or not every citizen of Nigeria had the equality of vote.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com