Tinubu’s oppositions to knows their fate as “Judgement Day” knocks on the door. The five-member panel of the court, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, granted approval for judgment on August 1 after all parties presented their final briefs of argument in front of the Nigeria Election Tribunal. During their submission of their final written address, Atiku and the PDP, represented by their legal team led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, implored the court to declare President Tinubu ineligible for the February 25 presidential election.
Allegations of Electoral Manipulation Helping Tinubu and the Call for a Rerun
Their plea to the court included nullifying the entire presidential election outcome and calling for a re-run or fresh contest. Atiku and the PDP alleged that despite receiving over N355 billion for the election, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) intentionally bypassed the technological advancements introduced for the 2023 general elections. They argued that INEC violated the amended Electoral Act by refusing to electronically transmit the presidential election results.
Chief Chris Uche, SAN, elaborated on this, saying, “The purpose of the innovation was to enhance transparency in the collation of results and to improve result integrity, which had been problematic in the past. INEC had a choice, and we presented video evidence of the INEC Chairman showing that the electoral body chose an option. There is no technical glitch; instead, there was a deliberate bypass of technology to allow manipulation.”
Chief Chris Uche, SAN, Urges Court to Scrutinize INEC’s Actions
He asserted that INEC owed the court and the nation an explanation for this. Uche emphasized that it was INEC’s responsibility to clarify this situation, not the petitioner’s duty to explain the technical glitch. He urged the court to rule that there was deliberate non-compliance, with the gravity of the non-compliance demonstrated by its national scope.
Uche, SAN, also argued that the forfeiture proceeding involving Tinubu in the USA was ongoing. He stated, “Time does not absolve crime, and even if the Constitution allows for forgiveness, there should still be consequences for wrongdoing. We implore the court to prioritize substantial justice over technicalities.”
Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, Asserts Deliberate Sabotage of Election Results and Flawed Process
Likewise, during their final argument, Obi and the LP, represented by Mr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, contended that there was no glitch during the election, but rather an intentional act to sabotage the election’s outcome. Uzoukwu, SAN, emphasized that “an election with over 18,088 blurred results uploaded to INEC’s IReV portal is inherently flawed.” He revealed that some of the documents certified by INEC included blank A4 papers and pictures, which explained their inability to produce original result copies.
Furthermore, Obi’s lead counsel pointed to the forfeiture of $460,000 by Tinubu in the United States due to narcotic trafficking and money laundering, citing Section 137 (1) (d) of the Constitution as the basis for disqualification based on a fine for dishonesty.
INEC and Other Respondents Dismiss Petition, Emphasize Validity of Presidential Election
On the other hand, all the Respondents, including INEC, President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, and the APC, through their respective lawyers, urged the court to dismiss the petitions, as they lacked merit.
INEC’s legal team, led by Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, maintained that the presidential election was valid and substantially compliant with all relevant laws. They argued that the petitioners misunderstood the purpose of the technology introduced for the 2023 general elections, explaining that the BVAS device was for voter authentication, verification, and result transmission.
Mahmoud, SAN, emphasized that INEC made extensive efforts to ensure the technology functioned as intended, and there was no evidence of electronic collation system use in any election in Nigeria. He admitted a technical glitch but denied it was contrived for manipulation.
Respondents Defend Election Validity and Dispute Allegations in Court
Regarding the 18,088 blurred results allegation, Mahmoud stated that it was baseless, as the results on IReV did not suggest the original copies were blurred. He noted that the petitioners failed to present original copies of Form EC8A provided to their agents.
Concerning the claim that Tinubu did not secure 25% of the votes in the FCT, INEC’s lawyer argued that such an interpretation was illogical and contrary to the Constitution’s intent, asserting that the FCT should be considered the 37th state without special election status.
President Tinubu and VP Shettima, represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, urged the court to uphold the electorate’s decision leading to their victory. Olanipekun, SAN, accused Atiku and Obi of failing to meet their legal burden and argued that they merely dumped documents before the court. He asserted that his clients secured one-third of the votes in the FCT and questioned Obi’s standing as he was not found on the LP’s register.
Court Hears Final Arguments as Respondents Defend Election Validity and Dispute Allegations
Regarding the USA forfeiture case, Olanipekun, SAN, cited Section 137 (1) (e) of the Constitution to argue that over 20 years had passed since the case was decided, rendering it irrelevant to disqualification. He emphasized that Tinubu was not under any fine.
Furthermore, the APC, represented by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, called for the dismissal of the petitions, highlighting that the issues raised had been addressed in previous court decisions. Fagbemi, SAN, argued that Tinubu received over 25% of the votes in approximately 29 states, and any other interpretation would be constitutionally absurd. He also asserted that Obi’s request for a rerun poll, despite his potential disqualification, was overly ambitious.
Table of Contents
Discover more from OGM News NG
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
