*Photo L-R: Tinubu, Shettima *
The Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja on Wednesday, 6th September in a lengthy judgement read by Justice Simon Haruna Tsammani ruled that petitions against the election of President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima did not hold water.
The election of Tinubu and Shettima was challenged by the presidential candidate of Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Delivering judgement on three consolidated petitions, Justice Tsammani ruled that “it is unimaginable that a petitioner will allege widespread rigging in 176,000 Polling units, over 8,000 wards, 774 LGAs, 36 States and FCT without stating the specific place where the alleged irregularities occurred”.
On the issue of non-compliance with the Electoral Act & INEC Regulations & Guidelines, Justice Tsammani ruled that the only technological device mandatory for INEC to use for the election was the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS), and that there is nothing in the regulation to show that the BVAS must electronically transmit polling unit results.
The tribunal also held that IREV is not a collation system, and the judgement in the case of Oyetola vs. INEC clearly supports this.
“There is no provision for the electronic transmission of election results in the Electoral Act 2022,” says Justice Tsammani. “It is, at best, optional.”
The Judge insisted that the petitioners failed to prove their case, and the witnesses were not well prepared to give evidence after cross examination.
According to the ruling,
Labour Party and Peter Obi in their petition could not establish their assertion that INEC must electronically transfer presidential election results; they failed to substaintiate their claim that glitches recorded by INEC resulting in its inability to upload presidential result was delibrately done to manipulate the result .
One of the five judges, Abba Mohammed, read the ruling on preliminary objections filed by the respondents against Peter Obi’s petition that:
– Respondents contend that Obi’s petition alleged widespread irregularities without specifying the affected polling units.
– The petition claimed that false election results were submitted without specifying which polling units were impacted.
– The petition alleged overvoting and rigging but did not specify the polling units.
“The petitioners only made generic allegations,” Justice Mohammed said.
He added that the petitioners alleged irregularities, saying they would use spreadsheets, inspection reports, and forensic analysis as evidence in the trial, but the documents promised by the petitioners were not attached to the petition and served on the respondents.
The Judges also ruled that Obi and the Labour Party did not adequately detail their allegations of corrupt practices, vote suppression, fictitious results, and other irregularities in their pleadings.