In the petitions filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the Labour Party (LP), and their presidential candidates, Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima have presented their arguments to the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) as to why the petitions should be dismissed.
The respondents dispute the claims made by Atiku and Obi regarding the requirement of scoring 25 percent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to be declared president. They argue that these claims may stem from a misreading or miscomprehension of the Constitution and relevant provisions.
In their final written addresses, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, representing the respondents, described both petitions as lacking substance.
Tinubu and Shettima asserted that neither petition provided sufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims that the election did not comply with relevant laws or that the APC candidates were ineligible to contest.
They also pointed out that the petitions did not address common electoral issues such as election rigging, ballot box snatching, violence, or voter intimidation, which are typically associated with electoral vices.
The respondents further explained that the crux of the petitioners’ grievances was the alleged failure to electronically upload some election results to the INEC Election Result Viewing (IREV) portal.
Additionally, the petitioners contended that Tinubu did not score 25 percent of the votes in the FCT. However, the respondents emphasized that the petitioners failed to provide factual evidence to support their claims adequately.
Tinubu stated that he won the election with 8,794,726 votes, surpassing Atiku’s 6,984,520 votes, making him the closest rival. Obi secured a distant third place with 6,101,533 votes.
The respondents pointed out that they obtained more than 25 percent of the total votes cast in 29 states, while Atiku achieved the same in 21 states and Obi in only 16 states and the FCT.
They highlighted the irony that Atiku, who scored 16.13 percent of the votes in the FCT compared to Tinubu’s 19.76 percent, was seeking to be declared the winner while simultaneously challenging Tinubu’s victory.
Citing previous Supreme Court decisions on the status of the FCT, the respondents argued that the Constitution clearly indicates that the FCT should be considered as the 37th state.
They emphasized that any other interpretation would lead to absurdity and chaos. The respondents referred to a range of court decisions that demonstrate a purposeful approach to interpreting the Constitution.
The respondents noted the LP candidate’s attempt to be declared the winner despite coming in a distant third in the election.
They criticized the Obi/LP petition for relying on frivolous claims, including the failure to electronically upload results, non-compliance with the Electoral Act, and an unlawful nomination of the Tinubu/Shettima ticket.
The respondents further criticized Atiku and Obi for basing their petitions on unrelated matters, such as forfeiture proceedings in the United States.
Regarding the qualifications of Tinubu and Shettima, the respondents argued that the petitioners failed to prove their allegations while the respondents provided ample evidence establishing their eligibility to run for the positions of president and vice president.
Tinubu and Shettima asserted that the election was conducted peacefully and in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, INEC regulations, and election manuals. They highlighted that witnesses called by the petitioners testified to the absence of violence and electoral irregularities during the election.
They also acknowledged the unpredictable nature of technological devices in the Nigerian context.
The respondents claimed that both petitions lacked substance, and contained repetitions, contradictions, and confusion.
They criticized the petitioners’ allegations of non-compliance with the Electoral Act based on the failure to electronically transmit polling unit results to the IREV portal. The respondents pointed out that manual collation took place from the polling unit level to the national level.
They also highlighted the petitioners’ failure to specify the number of lawful and unlawful votes.
Regarding the witnesses presented by the petitioners, Tinubu and Shettima deemed their evidence unreliable.
However, they argued that their sole witness, Senator Opeyemj Bamidele, demonstrated competence and testified on various subjects, including issues related to US proceedings and the Electoral Act.
In concluding the written address on the Obi petition, Chief Olaonipekun, SAN, the head of the respondents’ legal team, referenced a Supreme Court judgment that described the case as starved of evidence and emphasized that judges cannot manufacture evidence to assist a plaintiff in winning a case.
Overall, the respondents presented their arguments to the PEPC, contesting the claims made by the petitioners.
They questioned the lack of relevant evidence, pointed out inconsistencies in the petitions, and argued for the dismissal of the petitions based on constitutional interpretations, previous court rulings, and the peaceful conduct of the election.
