PEPC: Mixed reactions, as Tinubu finally files objection, ignores Atiku, asks tribunal to disqualify Obi      

With less than five working days to close of filings, President-elect and candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) at the 2023 elections, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, has finally filed his objection to petitions before the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEBC) sitting in Abuja, challenging the various reliefs sought by opposition party candidates in the polls.

In his objection filed by his team of lawyers, and marked CA/PEPC/03/2023 at the PEPC’s Secretariat, Monday night, through Thomas Ojo SAN, a member of the legal team led by Lateef Fagbemi SAN, Asiwaju Tinubu prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition filed by the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, against his emergence president-elect in the February 25 election.

Tinubu, who listed Peter Obi, Labour Party, as first and second petitioners, further asked the tribunal to dismiss Obi’s petition with substantial cost on the grounds that it lacked merit and was frivolous.

Notably, Tinubu’s objection did not include Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who has also petitioned the tribunal challenging the outcome of the February 25 elections.

Tinubu’s lawyers further asked the court to dismiss Obi’s petition on the grounds that he lacked requisite ‘locus standi’ to institute the petition because he was not a member of LP at least 30 days to the party’s presidential primary to be validly sponsored by the party.

“The 1st petitioner (Obi) was a member of PDP until May 24, 2022.

“1st petitioner was screened as a presidential aspirant of the PDP in April 2022.

“1st petitioner participated and was cleared to contest the presidential election while being a member of the PDP.

“1st petitioner purportedly resigned his membership of PDP on May 24, 2022 to purportedly join the 2nd petitioner (Labour Party) on May 27, 2022.

“2nd petitioner conducted its presidential primary on May 30, 2022 which purportedly produced 1st petitioner as its candidate, which time contravened Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act for him to contest the primary election as a member of the 2nd petitioner,” Tinubu’s petition read.

According to Tinubu, “by the mandatory provisions of Section 77 (1) (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022, a political party shall maintain a register and shall make such register available to INEC not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses and convention.”

It stated further that all the PDP’s presidential candidates were screened on April 29, an exercise Mr Obi participated in and cleared to contest while being a member of the party, arguing that the petition was incompetent since Mr Obi’s name could not have been in LP’s register made available to INEC at the time he joined the party.

The APC equally argued that his (Obi) petition was improperly constituted having failed to join Atiku Abubakar and PDP who were necessary parties to be affected by the reliefs sought.

“By Paragraph 17 of the petition, the petitioners, on their own, stated that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar came second in the presidential election with 6,984,520 votes as against the petitioners who came third with 6,101,533 votes;

“At Paragraph 102 (ii) of the petition, the petitioners urged the tribunal to determine that 1st petitioner scored the majority of lawful votes without joining Alhaji Atiku Abubakar in the petition.

“For the tribunal to grant prayer (iii) of the petitioners, the tribunal must have set aside the scores and election of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar,

“Alhaji Atiku Abubakar must be heard before his votes can be discountenanced by the tribunal,” it said.

The party said the petition and the identified paragraphs were in breach of the mandatory provisions of Paragraph 4(1)(D) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.

According to APC, Paragraphs 60 — 77 of the petition are non-specific, vague and/or nebulous and thereby incompetent contrary to Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the Ist Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.

It said that the allegations of non-compliance must be made distinctly and proved on a polling unit basis but none was specified or provided in any of the paragraphs of the petition.

“Paragraphs 59-60 of the petition disclose no identity or particulars of scores and polling units supplied in 18,088 units mentioned therein,” it added.

The party, therefore, argued that the tribunal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain pre-election complaints embedded in the petition as presently constituted, among other arguments.

The APC urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial cost as the same was devoid of any merit and founded on frivolity.

Tinubu’s legal team at the tribunal consists of 12 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), including, Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, as head; Sam Ologunorisa, Rotimi Oguneso, Olabisi Soyebo, Gboyega Oyewole, Muritala Abdulrasheed, Aliyu Omezia Saiki, Tajudeen Oladoja, Pius Akubo, Oluseye Opasanya, Suraju Saida, and Kazeem Adeniyi.

The National Legal Adviser of the APC, Ahmad Usman El-Marzuq, Esq.,will also appear for also appear as consultant.

Meanwhile, mixed reactions have trailed the objection filed by Tinubu’s legal team, with some legal practitioners hailing it, just as others downplayed the challenge.

Analysing Tinubu’s objections, via his Facebook page, Tuesday, legal practitioner, Barrister Ghani Rotimi, said the President-elect’s team has left a mountain for ‘Obi and his team to climb,’ adding; ‘I doubt they (Obi) will survive it.’

“APC has now responded with Objection to Petition & Reply to Petitions filed by AA, APP, APM & LP. The frivolities put together as Petitions have been laid bare….

“The other 3 Petitions did not seek a return. Only LP did, albeit, on shaky grounds. Aside from the fact that the LP Petition is thin on facts, it is a carryon of the propaganda that defined the Obi presidential ambition.  All the blustering and posturing he maintained in his media outburst after the election results were announced are not repeated in his Petition. You have to wonder why???

“He said he would demonstrate that he won the election but same was stolen from him by INEC. “Whereas in his Petition he admits that he could not have won unless the Courts cancels the entire votes cast in all the Polling Units in 14 States and conducts a surgery on votes cast in 3 other States. That surgery will not yield enough votes to eliminate Atiku’s lead over Obi, let alone scratch the gulf between him and Asiwaju. So it’s a bridge to nowhere!

“What is more? He picked no issues with Atiku who came second and he failed to provide particulars of where he scored votes to challenge the margin of lead of both Atiku and the President-Elect. In law, you can only prove by way of evidence what you plead.

“The LP Petition interestingly, took a detour into unrelated matters of the Chicago case claiming this is a ground for disqualification.  Well, again, this must have been introduced merely to excite their toxic fan base who need twisted versions of reality as oxygen. 

“The case in Chicago was a civil matter brought under Title 28 § 1345 and 1355 which both relate to the civil jurisdiction of District Courts in America in respect to civil cases brought by US government or its agency or its officers. Note; CIVIL JURISDICTION.

“Therefore, can a criminal conviction be made by a Court in a matter where only its civil jurisdiction was invoked??? It is like paying Jaguar for sedan and asking him to deliver an SUV to you!!! No be witch be that?

“To invoke the criminal jurisdiction of a Court, there are procedures. To invoke its civil jurisdiction, there are separate procedures!! But this is the circus LP has sent its supporters on!!! There are so many points on the watery nature of this ground but let’s just make it simple for all to follow.

“On the issue of FCT, that is a matter of interpretation and we are convinced that LP’s proposition will work manifest absurdity and create “Preferred Votes” for FCT residents which has no basis in law and electoral jurisprudence. There is no example of such anywhere in the world where a section of the population of a country have golden votes to make or break a presidential candidate. So we are confident in our response to defeat LP’s proposition.

“The other side to this issue is that LP benefits nothing from it should the Court even (most unlikely) agree with them on this ground alone. It will rather spark a runoff between 1st and 2nd and nothing more because this is not a disqualifying element.

“Finally, LP says Shettima was not properly nominated. Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2022 settles that question. The Vice President- Elect withdrew from his Senatorial nomination in compliance with this Section and that settled it.

“In all, LP threatened an earth quake and we ended up with less than a slight land tremor or nothing at all!. By the way, at least 2 of their lawyers are extremely known for their good work in Election Petitions. “If LP had a better case, they would have presented it. They just don’t have one!!

The fact that they are clutching at straws to make a coherent credible case in Court is the reason why we must ignore their empty groundstanding in the media space. It’s all nothing but hot air!

“By the way, was Obi even a proper candidate? Was he a member of LP in the eyes of the Electoral Act 2022? That’s the mountain we gave Obi and his team to climb. I doubt they will survive it,” Rotimi wrote.

Also reacting, Tuesday, Spokesperson for the Tinubu/Shettima Campaign Organisation, Mr Bayo Onanuga expressed the hope that his camp ‘will make their processes available.’

“Legal fireworks set to begin at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja with the APC asking Peter Obi to prove that he was validly sponsored by LP as candidate. APC lawyers contend Obi was not a member of LP, according to the Electoral Act, as at the time of his alleged sponsorship.

“Let’s hope that the APC and Tinubu will make their processes available,” Mr Onanuga wrote.

However, others canvassing different opinions described Tinubu’s objection as ‘watery.’

Journalist, David Hundeyin wrote: “The APC’s response to Peter Obi’s election tribunal petition is exactly what I thought it would be – watery nonsense that exclusively focuses on trying to use technicalities to escape from the actual issue.

“Not a single attempt at rebutting the drug trafficking indictment.”

While, a Lagos-based civil rights activist and lawyer, Inihebe Effiong, wrote: “I am wondering what APC and Tinubu are hoping to achieve with their arguments on Obi’s belated membership of the LP. It’s not their business. It’s a pre-election matter. It’s not a constitutional requirement.”

It would be recalled that Labour Party and Peter Obi, as second and first petitioner, respectively, had sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, his running mate, Kashim Shettima and the APC as 1st to 4th respondents, respectively.

The petitioners are seeking the nullification of the election victory of Messrs Tinubu and Shettima in the 25 February presidential poll.

In the petition marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 filed by Obi and LP’s lead counsel, Livy Ozoukwu, they contended that Mr Tinubu “was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election.”

The petitioners claimed there was rigging in 11 states, adding that they would demonstrate this in the declaration of results based on the uploaded results.

Obi and LP said INEC violated its own regulations when it announced the result despite the fact that at the time of the announcement, the totality of the polling unit results had yet to be fully scanned, uploaded and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.

Among other prayers, the petitioners urged the tribunal to “determine that, at the time of the presidential election held on February 25, 2023, the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) were not qualified to contest the election.

“That it be determined that all the votes recorded for the 2nd respondent in the election are wasted votes, owing to the non-qualification of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

“That it be determined that on the basis of the remaining votes (after discountenancing the votes credited to the 2nd respondent) the 1st petitioner (Obi) scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25 per cent of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the states of the federation and the FCT and satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

“That it be determined that the 2nd respondent (Tinubu), having failed to score one-quarter of the votes cast at the presidential election in the FCT was not entitled to be declared and returned as the winner of the presidential election held on February 25,” Obi, LP petition read.