Presidential Poll: Tension as Supreme Court decides Tinubu, Atiku, Obi’s fate today.

 

 

Chigozie Ikpo, Abuja

The Supreme Court of Nigeria, has fixed Thursday, October 26, 2023, for judgement in the appeals filed by candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), challenging the victory of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the February 25 elections.

 

Atiku and Obi had in separate petitions asked the Apex court to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the election of Tinubu.

 

Dr. Awemeri Festus Akande, Supreme Court’s Director of the Press and Information, confirmed the development on Wednesday, stating that adequate security arrangements had been put in place to prevent security breaches both within and outside the court premises.

 

A seven-man panel the Apex court, led by Justice John Inyang Okoro, had on Monday reserved judgments after taking final arguments from lawyers to parties in the petitions, while, the appeal filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), was dismissed after it was withdrawn by the appellant

 

Obi, who came third in the election, had in his 51 grounds of appeal, maintained that the PEPC panel erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion when it dismissed his petition.

 

He alleged that the panel wrongly evaluated the proof of evidence he adduced before it and occassioned a grave miscarriage of justice when it held that he did not specify polling units where irregularities occured during the election.

 

Atiku who produced fresh evidence from the Chicago State University (CSU) in addition to his earlier appeal, is asking the Apex court to ignore technicalities and accept them in the case, as he seeks the disqualification of Tinubu.

 

Obi and the LP, on the other hand, faulted the PEPC for dismissing their case on the premise that they did not specify the figures of votes or scores that were allegedly suppressed or inflated in favour of President Tinubu and the APC.

 

They accused the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led PEPC panel of erring in law when it relied on paragraph 4(1) (d) (2) and 54 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022 to strike out paragraphs of the petition.

 

While accusing the lower court of breaching his right to fair hearing, Obi insisted that evidence of his witnesses were wrongly dismissed as incompetent.

 

He told the apex court that the panel unjustly dismissed his allegation that INEC uploaded 18, 088 blurred results on its IReV portal.

 

More so, Obi, alleged that the lower court ignored his allegation that certified true copies of documents that INEC issued to his legal team, comprised of 8, 123 blurred results that contained blank A4 papers, pictures and images of unknown persons, purporting same to be the CTC of polling units results of the presidential election.

 

“The learned justices of the court below erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when they held and concluded that he failed to establish the allegation of corrupt practices and over-voting,” Obi added.

 

He said it was wrong for the lower court to rely on the legal principle of estoppel to dismiss his contention that INEC bypassed its own regulations when it refused to electronically transmit results of the election from polling units to the IReV.

 

“The petitioners addicted credible and substantial evidence, both oral and documentary, that proved substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 by the Respondents in the conduct of the election.

 

“The court below overlooked that the Respondents failed to disprove the evidence of substantial non-compliance adduced by the petitioners,” the Appellants stated, adding that the panel wrongfully dismissed the issue of double nomination that was raised against Tinubu’s Vice President, Kashim Shettima.

 

Likewise, Obi insisted that the PEPC overlooked evidence that established that President Tinubu was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460, 000 in the USA over his involvement in a drug related case.

 

“Imposition of a fine is not limited to a criminal conviction, as the word, in law, includes a civil forfeiture,” Obi further argued in his appeal.