*Says Tinubu ’eminently’ qualified
The Presidential Election Petition Court has ruled against allegations of fraud and drug allegations leveled against President Bola Tinubu by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr Peter Obi.
The former governor of Anambra State and his party, claimed Tinubu was made to forfeit the sum of $460,000 to the US over alleged complicity in drug related offences in the early 90s.
The Petitioners, were among other things alleged that by virtue of a forfeiture order against Tinubu by a United States District Court, his name ought not to be on the ballot.
However, the court in it’s judgment held that the Petitioners failed to substantiate the above mentioned allegation, consequently, it held that the respondent was eminently qualified to contest the election.
Justice Tsunami held that Obi failed to prove that Tinubu was found guilty of any offence involving any act of dishonesty, adding that evidence before the court showed that the forfeiture order against Tinubu was in a civil, an allegation against a bank and not criminal matter.
The five-man panel held that Tinubu was neither arraigned nor convicted in the US over any alleged crime to warrant his disqualification.
“The Petitioners failed to prove that Tinubu went through any criminal trial, any form of sentences imposed on him. No record of any form of criminal arrest recorded in the USA.
“A general search was conducted and there was no records of any criminal charges against Tinubu.
“The result of the search were negative of any criminal charge arrest and conviction.”
The court noted that documents tendered by the respondents confirmed that he was given a clean bill of health after enquiry from Nigeria.
Beside, the tribunal held that under Section 269(1&2) such documents must be given under the hand Police official and must be accompanied with a certificate showing that the police officer has powers to sign such documents.
Justice Tsunami further held that even if Tinubu were convicted for the alleged offence, for him to be disqualified from the 2023 election, the purported conviction must take place within 10 years to the election.
On the Obi’s claim that the
results of the election were not transmitted real time to the INEC’s Results Viewing (IReV) portals, the court held there is no where in the Electoral Act, that says election must be electronically transmitted for collation.
It maintained that Sections 14&18 of the Electoral Act provides for the use of the Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) for the purpose of accreditation of voters, but ” IReV is not a collation system”.
Therefore, it dismissed the claim of not compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.
“It should be noted as decided by this court previously, the BVAS is to transmit results to IREV. The IREV is not a collation system/center,” the court held .
The court also held that the testimonies of 10 out of 13 witnesses called by Obi and LP were worthless, adding that no witness can give evidence in chief if his statement on oath is not properly before the court .
“By combined provisions of section 285 of the Nigeria Constitution as amended and paragraph 14(1) and 14 of the schedule of the Electoral Act, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to file and use witness statement filed outside 21 days”.
