The presidential candidate of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last general election, Atiku Abubakar, has told the president-elect, Bola Tinubu, that unlike him, he has consistently contested presidential elections because he has no drug-related record or identity issues. Atiku stated this in his reply to Tinubu's Notice of Preliminary Objection against his petition challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential election, where the latter mocked the former vice president as one who had repeatedly contested the presidential election and had always failed.
The presidential candidate of Labour Party (LP), Mr Peter Obi, also faulted the objection of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to his petition against the election of Tinubu as president.
Obi, in his reply to INEC's response to his petition at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, observed that the action of the electoral umpire was not only unwarranted but also an embarrassment to the country.
Tinubu, in his Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on April 12 by his lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the petition filed by Atiku and his party, PDP, for being vague, an abuse of court process. He said the suit was not properly constituted and the reliefs sought by the petitioners were not grantable.
Atiku, while serving Tinubu in equal proportion, said he "has never had any controversy surrounding his age, circumstances of his birth, state of origin, gender, educational qualification, health status, working career, and citizenship, all issues bordering on constitutional qualification to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria."
He said Tinubu had demonstrated inconsistency as to his actual date of birth, secondary schools he attended (Government College Ibadan), state of origin, gender, actual name, certificates evidencing universities attended (Chicago State University).
Atiku said, "The purported degree certificate of the second respondent allegedly acquired at the Chicago State University did not belong to him but to a female (F) described as "F" in the certificate bearing the name Bola Tinubu.
"The second respondent did not disclose to the first respondent his voluntary acquisition of citizenship of Republic of Guinea with Guinean Passport No. DO00001551, in addition to his Nigerian citizenship. The second respondent is hereby given notice to produce the original copies of his said two passports."
The former vice president further submitted that Tinubu had record of criminal forfeiture of the sum of $460,000.00 for a drug-related offence before the United States District Judge, John A Nordberg in the second respondent's First Heritage Account No. 263226700, being proceeds of narcotics-trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C 1956 and 1947 for an offence involving narcotics.
Responding to the issue of failure to join other presidential candidates in the petition, Atiku said the party, including himself, did not have any grievance against Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso or any other candidate, because they were not returned as the winner of the election by INEC.
On another issue, Atiku said the defence of non-control of the eco-system and of third-party network providers was an after-thought, adding that Tinubu was not competent to offer such gratuitous defence on behalf of INEC.
While claiming that INEC persisted in the violation of its own regulations, Atiku said, "As at the time INEC commenced uploading of results to the IReV, the presiding officers were no longer at their polling units. As at March 18, 2023, only results from 166,551 polling units out of 176,846 polling units across the country, had been uploaded on the IReV, as shown in the extract of the Data Report from the IreV."
Atiku said the place, time and circumstances of these uploads remained unknown to the petitioners, as none of the petitioners' agents were physically present to monitor the transmission of the purported results.
On the claim that the petition was an abuse of court process, because of an earlier suit filed by some PDP governors at the Supreme Court on February 28, Atiku pointed out that the parties in the said suit were not the same as the parties in the instant proceedings.
Atiku submitted, "The proceedings which were commenced by Originating Summons dated 28" February, 2023, filed by the Attorneys General of Adamawa State, Akwa-Ibom State, Bayelsa State, Delta State, Edo State and Sokoto State as Plaintiffs, had since been discontinued.
"The grounds of the Petition are competent as they comply with Section 134(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Electoral Act, 2022. The election of the Second Respondent did not meet the applicable requirements enunciated in section 134(3) of the Electoral Act.
"The Petition is properly constituted pursuant to section 133 of the Electoral Act, 2022 and paragraph 4(1) & (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Election Petition. The petitioners' prayers are grantable pursuant to paragraph 4(3) of the Rules of Procedure for Election Petition and section 136(1), (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022."
Obi Faults INEC's Objection to Petition against Tinubu
Presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Mr Peter Obi, faulted the objection of INEC to his petition against the election of Bola Tinubu as president.
Obi, in his reply to the response by INEC to his petition at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, observed that the action of the electoral umpire unwarranted.
According to the petition, INEC, in line with global best practice for electoral umpires in national elections, ought to "avoid creating the impression that it has no respect for neutrality in an electoral contest between candidates."
Obi and his party, who were joint petitioners recalled several judgements, which had repeatedly admonished INEC on its need to remain neutral in election proceedings.
According to the petitioners, "However, the First Respondent hereof, has remained impervious to change. Therefore, it is not only an embarrassment but a repudiation of the duty of the First Respondent when it adorns the garb of a contestant in an election it conducted as an umpire to raise preliminary objection against an election petition as in the case hereof."
The petitioners insisted that INEC must maintain neutrality in all litigations, where participants in elections were challenging the outcome of the elections and not indulge in filling objections to the petitions.
In their reply to the Preliminary Objection dated April 25, the petitioners denied the contention that the facts supporting the grounds on which the petition was based were vague and imprecise.
"The First Respondent's contention that the reliefs sought in the Petition are not grantable is false and made in manifest disregard of the specific and concise pleadings in the Petition.
"The pleading in the First Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection that the allegation in paragraph 20(ii) of the Petition is defective and does not disclose a cause of action, is wishful thinking. The specific particulars of non-compliance complained of which substantially affected the outcome of the election are as pleaded in paragraphs 33 to 78 of the Petition.
"The Petitioners further aver that Reliefs 3, 5(i) and 5(ii) of the Petition are grantable and are amply supported by the detailed particulars of non-compliance alleged in the Petition."
On the issue of alleged inadequate representation, Obi and LP stated that contrary to INEC's claim, their agents were at the polling units during the conduct of the election, adding, "Unfortunately, the First Respondent's officials at the polling units failed and neglected to give clear copies of the result of the election in the polling units (Forms EC 8A) to the Petitioners' Agents, as the pink copies given to the Petitioners Agents were very faint and unreadable."
The petitioners also faulted INEC on the issue of double nomination, stating that while Section 29 of the Electoral Act, 2022 governs the submission of list of candidates and their Affidavits in Form EC9, Sections 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35 of the Electoral Act 2022, on the other, governs the prohibition of double nomination, withdrawal of candidate, political party changing its candidate and invalidity of multiple nomination.
They stated, "As at 14th July, 2022 when the Third Respondent was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Fourth Respondent, the Third Respondent was still the senatorial candidate of the Fourth Respondent for the Borno Central Senatorial District, his name not having been withdrawn by the Fourth Respondent as stipulated by Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022.
"(v) Borno Central Senatorial District is a Constituency for the purpose of a Senatorial election. Likewise, the entire Federation is a Constituency for election for the office of President and Vice President.
"Until there is a valid substitution of a candidate by a political party, the status quo remains and, therefore, the submission of the Third Respondent's Form EC 9 as Vice Presidential Candidate of the Fourth Respondent did not automatically abrogate his subsisting nomination as Senatorial Candidate for the Senatorial election for Borno Central Senatorial District."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The petitioners, in answer to the issue of "manual collation", stated in paragraph 31 of the First Respondent's Reply, averred that by the applicable Laws and Regulations, the legitimate mode for resolving disputes at the collation was by resorting to the result uploaded on the IReV using the BVAS.
Obi and LP stated, "As at the date of filing this Reply on 21st April 2023, the information on the First Respondent's IReV Portal (http://www.inecelectionresults.ng) shows that out of the 176,846 polling units, the results submitted were in respect of 167, 433 polling units; and that the percentage of the uploaded results on the IReV is 94.68%."
The petitioners will also show that by the subsisting judgements in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/334/2023, among others, the Federal High Court correctly applied the provisions of the Electoral Act and the Regulations made thereunder and determined that the use of BVAS for the accreditation and electronic transmission of the results of the election is mandatory.
They further claimed, INEC "unlawfully through its officials made attempt to manipulate the result of the presidential election uploaded on the backend server of the AWS; and thereafter, invented the unsubstantiated excuse of 'technological glitches' as their justification for their failure and neglect to transmit/transfer the result of the election as mandated by the Electoral Act and the Guidelines/Regulations to the IReV in real-time.
"Furthermore, in its mischievous attempts to compromise and manipulate the actual results of the election, the First Respondent uploaded blurred images/pictures purporting same to be the Forms EC 8A for the polling units itemised in the reports pleaded and incorporated in the Petition."
The petitioners accordingly urged the court to hold that INEC's Reply to the Petition in its entirety is without merit and ought to be discountenanced in toto.
