In a bizarre ruling, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on Wednesday in Abuja truck out the petition of the Labour Party’s presidential candidate, Peter Gregory Obi against the Election victory of Mr. Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC), saying it was greatly incompetent and defective beyond repairs.
In the judgement, delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, the court held that Obi’s petition raised several general allegations of malpractices, irregularities, corruption without being specific as required by law.
The Tribunal held that while Obi claimed to have scored the highest number of lawful votes in the February 25 presidential election, he failed completely to state or specify the number of the lawful votes he claimed to have won.
Justice Mohammed said to worsen the situation, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate pleaded report of forensic experts but failed to file the report along with the petition or serve same on the respondents in the petition.
Besides, Justice Mohammed said Obi’s claim that his votes were suppressed in favour of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, APC, was vague because he failed to give out any figure of votes to establish the claim.
The Tribunal also held that Obi’s allegations that votes credited to Tinubu were inflated was untenable because he never mentioned the number of the votes illegally given to Tinubu.
On the allegations of corrupt practices, Justice Mohammed stated that it is not every allegation of corruption that is regarded as corrupt practices, adding that averments in a pleading must be specific and not general as done by Obi.
“The Law is very clear that where someone alleged irregularities in a particular polling unit, as in the instant petition, such a person must prove the particular irregularities in that poling unit for him to succeed in his petition,” it held.
The Tribunal also held that Obi did not prove the particular polling units where elections did not take place and that he also failed to specify particulars of polling units where the complainants of irregularities were alleged.
On the issue of Tinubu’s conviction in the US, the court said the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, failed to prove that Tinubu was convicted of drug-related charges in the United States of America.
It noted that no record of criminal arrest or conviction was established against Tinubu by the petitioners.
He said, “The petitioners failed to show evidence that the president was detained or convicted for any particular offence as alleged by the petitioners.”
In the view of the court, the fine imposed on Tinubu by a United States court was over a civil forfeiture proceeding.
On the issue that Tinubu failed to score 25% of the votes cast in Abuja, as constitutionally required, the court declared that the Federal Capital Territory does not hold a higher status than other states in the country.
Justice Haruna Tsammani, who took over ruling on the main issues, said that Section 134 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) stipulates that a presidential candidate must attain or score a majority of votes cast in a presidential election, where two or more candidates are involved, and at least 25% in two-thirds of the 36 States and FCT to meet the constitutional requirement to be declared as duly elected as President of Nigeria.
Tsammani described the 25 per cent requirement in FCT as fallacious and incredibly ridiculous.
He said, “The argument of LP lawyer that the 2nd respondent ought not to have been declared winner because he did not score 25 per cent in the FCT is fallacious and incredibly ridiculous.”
cpcnews.org 