Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate in the last election, has told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INECnon-compliance )’s with the Electoral Act 2022 rendered Bola Tinubu’s election as president-elect invalid. Atiku stated this in a petition he filed with his party, the PDP, challenging Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the presidential election on February 25, 2023.
Outside the courtroom, the finger-pointing and recrimination over the presidential election result continued yesterday, as protesters stormed the National Assembly in Abuja to express their displeasure with the outcome.
Similarly, the British High Commission in Nigeria promised yesterday that it would closely monitor the legal proceedings regarding the presidential election results.
Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, was declared the winner and thus the president-elect by INEC. According to INEC, Tinubu received 8, 794, 726 votes to win, while the petitioner, Atiku, received 6,984, 520 votes to finish second.
However, in a petition filed by a team of 26 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), among others, Atiku and the PDP claimed that Tinubu’s victory was the result of alleged malpractices and other irregularities, and they sought the nullification of his victory.
Furthermore, the petitioners maintained that in order for any of the candidates in the February 25 election to be declared the winner, he or she must receive 25% of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). They went on to say that Tinubu’s failure to meet the aforementioned constitutional requirement rendered his election invalid.
INEC, Tinubu, and the APC are the petition’s first, second, and third respondents (CA/PEPC/05/2023).
The petition was based on four major grounds: (a) the election of the second respondent was invalid due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022; (b) the election of the second respondent was invalid due to corrupt practices; (c) the second respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election; and (d) the second respondent was not qualified to contest the election at the time of the poll.
In arguing the petition, the petitioners’ lead counsel, Joe Gadzama, SAN, stated, “The non-compliance significantly affected the result of the election, in that the second respondent ought not to have been declared or returned as the winner of the election.”
They recalled that INEC chairman Professor Mahmood Yakubu had repeatedly assured the public that the general election in February 2023 would be the best ever. The assurance was based on the guaranteed use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), as well as real-time and direct uploading of polling unit results to INEC’s electronic collation system and Results Viewing Portal (IReV), which were technological innovations in the electoral system that would ensure election transparency against all forms of manipulation.
The petitioners claimed that, contrary to the first respondent’s undertakings, representations, and assurances, the first respondent proceeded on March 1, 2023, to incorrectly return the second respondent as the election winner, “when the outcome (here being challenged) and the results from the polling units, including the total number of accredited voters in the respective polling units, had yet to be transmitted to the 1st Respondent’s Electronic Collation Center.”
“It is also the petitioners’ claim that the non-compliance with the electronic transmission of accreditation data and results in the presidential election was ‘to create opportunity for manipulation of figures to the advantage of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents,” the petition continued.
“The petitioners will present evidence at the hearing to demonstrate that there were no technical ‘glitches’ that prevented the upload and transmission of the presidential election polling unit results and accreditation data to the electronic collation system and the IReV portal, but that what happened was non-adherence to the system through a command and control element activated by a pre-programmed design to limit user-privileges of the BVAS machine’s front-end users.”
“It is the petitioners’ case that the bypass and non-use of BVAS machines in the transmission of accreditation data and polling unit results of the election fundamentally and significantly affected the integrity of the results announced by the 1st Respondent for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and thoroughly discredited the election process.”
Furthermore, the petitioners criticized Tinubu’s declaration as president-elect for failing to meet the required geographical spread as required by law.
They cited Section 134(2) of the Constitution, which states that in a presidential election with more than two candidates, a candidate must have the highest number of votes cast at the election; not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in at least two-thirds of all states in the Federation; and not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in the Federal Capital Territory.
“Of the total votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the 2nd Respondent received only 90,902 (18.99%) of those votes,” they write.
“The petitioners shall contend that, in order to be declared duly elected, a candidate must obtain not less than a quarter (25%) of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of all the states, as well as at least one quarter (25%) of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, this being an additional requirement introduced by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the said Constitution clearly distinguishing the FCT from the other states.”
Furthermore, the petitioners contended that INEC violated Section 66 of the Electoral Act, which incorporates Section 134 of the constitution, by wrongfully, unlawfully, illegally, and unconstitutionally declaring Tinubu the winner of the election.
On the second ground of the petition, the allegation of corrupt practices, Atiku and the PDP claimed that INEC manipulated the collation of election results in all states of the federation, “through the deliberate suppression and discounting of the petitioners’ lawful votes while inflating the scores of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.”
“Corrupt practices prior to and during the disputed election included, but were not limited to, compromised printing/production of electoral materials, manipulation of election material delivery, and compromised printing/production of election materials.”
“Other acts of corruption, according to them, include: suppression of votes; manipulation of ballots and ballot boxes; manipulation of BVAS machines; manipulation of accreditation and collation; manipulation of election materials delivery; manipulation of election material reverse logistics; intimidation and harassment of voters; massive thumb-printing of ballot papers; destruction of electoral materials; hijacking of electoral materials; mutilations, cancellations, and mutilations, cancellations, and mutilations, cancellations, and mutilations, cancellation
“The petitioners’ votes were massively suppressed by the 1st Respondent in several states, as evidenced by the statisticians’ report on which the petitioners relied.”
“In Sokoto State, the 1st Respondent cancelled results from 241 polling units but went ahead to declare presidential election results, while declaring the National Assembly elections in the same Sokoto State, which were held concurrently with the presidential election, as inconclusive.”
The cancellation impacted 301,499 registered voters in 471 polling units across the affected local government areas, according to the petitioners.
“The petitioners contend that the 1st Respondent wrongfully entered incorrect results for the petitioners in Borno State,” according to the petition. The petitioners contend that the 1st Respondent made numerous illegal entries and inscriptions that were not records of lawful votes cast at polling units, and that these votes are liable to be voided.
“In the case of Borno State, despite the representations of the 1st Respondent’s agents based on the provisions of the Electoral Act and the INEC Manual and Guidelines, there was a deliberate bypass of the use of the BVAS machines.”
The petitioners asked the court for a ruling that “the 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the election and, as a result, the declaration and return of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent as the winner of the presidential election conducted on the 25th day of February, 2023 is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, undue, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”
They also asked for a ruling that “the return of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent was wrongful, unlawful, undue, null and void, having failed to satisfy the requirements of the Electoral Act 2022 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which mandatorily requires the 2nd Respondent to score not less than one-quarter (25%) of the lawful votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states
They also urged the court to rule that Tinubu was ineligible to run for office at the time of the election.
In the alternative, the petitioners asked that “the 1st Petitioner, having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the presidential election of Saturday, 25 February, 2023, be returned as the winner of the said election and be sworn in as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
“An Order directing the First Respondent to hold a run-off election between the First Petitioner and the Second Respondent.”
In addition, the petitioners requested that “the election to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on February 25, 2023 be annulled and a fresh election (re-run) ordered.”
Protesters Storm National Assembly, Demand Presidential Election Be Cancelled
Protesters stormed the National Assembly in Abuja yesterday to express their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the February 25 presidential election. They carried placards with messages such as “Save our Democracy,” “Politicians are Killing our Democracy,” and “INEC is Killing Nigerian Democracy.”
They reiterated their earlier call for the 2023 presidential election to be canceled.
The protest, which began at the Unity Fountain in Maitama, paralyzed vehicular movement in the nation’s capital for several hours.
The demonstrators, on the other hand, encountered stiff resistance when they were denied entry into the National Assembly premises by security personnel.
The Divisional Police Officer (DPO) at the National Assembly, who arrived to address the protesters, stated that they would not be allowed into the National Assembly premises because there was no written permission from the group or the relevant authorities.
Dr. Moses Ogidi Paul, leader and co-convener of the Free Nigeria Group, described INEC as a failed institution while speaking to journalists.
Paul demanded that the INEC chairman be arrested and prosecuted for supervising what he called a fraudulent presidential election.
Other members of the group expressed their displeasure with the way the presidential election was conducted.
This came less than 24 hours after the group staged a similar protest at INEC headquarters, demanding the immediate removal of the INEC chairman.
The British High Commission promises to monitor legal proceedings.
The British High Commission in Nigeria has promised to monitor the legal proceedings regarding the presidential election results. This was stated in a signed statement issued yesterday by Atinuke Akande-Alegbe, Senior Communications and Public Diplomacy Officer, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) of the British High Commission.
According to the statement, the British High Commission observed the governorship elections on March 18. According to the report, the commission dispatched teams to Benue, Enugu, Kano, Lagos, Oyo, and Rivers states.
“We observed improvements in elections logistics by INEC during the gubernatorial elections, particularly when compared to the presidential elections,” the high commission stated.
“There was more evidence of BVAS and IREV working, and results were uploaded in real time from polling units and collation centers.” These are encouraging signs for future elections.
“However, there were some significant points of concern.” Members of our observation mission witnessed violence and voter suppression in a number of polling places. We witnessed and heard credible reports from other observer missions and civil society organizations of vote buying and voter intimidation, as well as the destruction and hijacking of election materials and general disruption of the process in a number of states, including Lagos, Enugu, and Rivers.
“In addition, we observed instances of journalist harassment.” Freedom of expression and a free press are essential for a healthy democracy, and journalists must be able to do their jobs without fear of reprisal.”
It went on to say that the UK was concerned about some public and political figures using “inflammatory ethno-religious language.” We urge all leaders to not only distance themselves from such language, but also to prevent those who speak on their behalf from using it.
“Many Nigerians were willing to vote despite intimidation and hostility, demonstrating their commitment to democracy.”
The statement recalled that on February 21, the UK Minister of State for Development and Africa, Andrew Mitchell MP, stated that the UK was ready to take action against those who engaged in or incited electoral violence and other anti-democratic behavior, noting that “action could include preventing people from obtaining UK visas or imposing sanctions under the human rights sanctions regime.”
The statement revealed that relevant information was being gathered in order to take action against certain individuals.
“We urge any party or individual who wishes to challenge the process or outcome of the elections to do so peacefully and through the appropriate legal channels,” the statement continued.
“We will monitor the progress of legal challenges.”
“The 2023 elections are not only important to Nigeria and Nigerians, but to Africa and the world as a whole,” it insisted. As a long-term partner, the United Kingdom is committed to strengthening ties between our countries and peoples, including through support for democratic development.”
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate in the last election, has told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INECnon-compliance )’s with the Electoral Act 2022 rendered Bola Tinubu’s election as president-elect invalid. Atiku stated this in a petition he filed with his party, the PDP, challenging Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the presidential election on February 25, 2023.
Outside the courtroom, the finger-pointing and recrimination over the presidential election result continued yesterday, as protesters stormed the National Assembly in Abuja to express their displeasure with the outcome.
Similarly, the British High Commission in Nigeria promised yesterday that it would closely monitor the legal proceedings regarding the presidential election results.
Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, was declared the winner and thus the president-elect by INEC. According to INEC, Tinubu received 8, 794, 726 votes to win, while the petitioner, Atiku, received 6,984, 520 votes to finish second.
However, in a petition filed by a team of 26 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), among others, Atiku and the PDP claimed that Tinubu’s victory was the result of alleged malpractices and other irregularities, and they sought the nullification of his victory.
Furthermore, the petitioners maintained that in order for any of the candidates in the February 25 election to be declared the winner, he or she must receive 25% of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). They went on to say that Tinubu’s failure to meet the aforementioned constitutional requirement rendered his election invalid.
INEC, Tinubu, and the APC are the petition’s first, second, and third respondents (CA/PEPC/05/2023).
The petition was based on four major grounds: (a) the election of the second respondent was invalid due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022; (b) the election of the second respondent was invalid due to corrupt practices; (c) the second respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election; and (d) the second respondent was not qualified to contest the election at the time of the poll.
In arguing the petition, the petitioners’ lead counsel, Joe Gadzama, SAN, stated, “The non-compliance significantly affected the result of the election, in that the second respondent ought not to have been declared or returned as the winner of the election.”
They recalled that INEC chairman Professor Mahmood Yakubu had repeatedly assured the public that the general election in February 2023 would be the best ever. The assurance was based on the guaranteed use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), as well as real-time and direct uploading of polling unit results to INEC’s electronic collation system and Results Viewing Portal (IReV), which were technological innovations in the electoral system that would ensure election transparency against all forms of manipulation.
The petitioners claimed that, contrary to the first respondent’s undertakings, representations, and assurances, the first respondent proceeded on March 1, 2023, to incorrectly return the second respondent as the election winner, “when the outcome (here being challenged) and the results from the polling units, including the total number of accredited voters in the respective polling units, had yet to be transmitted to the 1st Respondent’s Electronic Collation Center.”
“It is also the petitioners’ claim that the non-compliance with the electronic transmission of accreditation data and results in the presidential election was ‘to create opportunity for manipulation of figures to the advantage of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents,” the petition continued.
“The petitioners will present evidence at the hearing to demonstrate that there were no technical ‘glitches’ that prevented the upload and transmission of the presidential election polling unit results and accreditation data to the electronic collation system and the IReV portal, but that what happened was non-adherence to the system through a command and control element activated by a pre-programmed design to limit user-privileges of the BVAS machine’s front-end users.”
“It is the petitioners’ case that the bypass and non-use of BVAS machines in the transmission of accreditation data and polling unit results of the election fundamentally and significantly affected the integrity of the results announced by the 1st Respondent for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and thoroughly discredited the election process.”
Furthermore, the petitioners criticized Tinubu’s declaration as president-elect for failing to meet the required geographical spread as required by law.
They cited Section 134(2) of the Constitution, which states that in a presidential election with more than two candidates, a candidate must have the highest number of votes cast at the election; not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in at least two-thirds of all states in the Federation; and not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in the Federal Capital Territory.
“Of the total votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the 2nd Respondent received only 90,902 (18.99%) of those votes,” they write.
“The petitioners shall contend that, in order to be declared duly elected, a candidate must obtain not less than a quarter (25%) of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of all the states, as well as at least one quarter (25%) of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, this being an additional requirement introduced by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the said Constitution clearly distinguishing the FCT from the other states.”
Furthermore, the petitioners contended that INEC violated Section 66 of the Electoral Act, which incorporates Section 134 of the constitution, by wrongfully, unlawfully, illegally, and unconstitutionally declaring Tinubu the winner of the election.
On the second ground of the petition, the allegation of corrupt practices, Atiku and the PDP claimed that INEC manipulated the collation of election results in all states of the federation, “through the deliberate suppression and discounting of the petitioners’ lawful votes while inflating the scores of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.”
“Corrupt practices prior to and during the disputed election included, but were not limited to, compromised printing/production of electoral materials, manipulation of election material delivery, and compromised printing/production of election materials.”
“Other acts of corruption, according to them, include: suppression of votes; manipulation of ballots and ballot boxes; manipulation of BVAS machines; manipulation of accreditation and collation; manipulation of election materials delivery; manipulation of election material reverse logistics; intimidation and harassment of voters; massive thumb-printing of ballot papers; destruction of electoral materials; hijacking of electoral materials; mutilations, cancellations, and mutilations, cancellations, and mutilations, cancellations, and mutilations, cancellation
“The petitioners’ votes were massively suppressed by the 1st Respondent in several states, as evidenced by the statisticians’ report on which the petitioners relied.”
“In Sokoto State, the 1st Respondent cancelled results from 241 polling units but went ahead to declare presidential election results, while declaring the National Assembly elections in the same Sokoto State, which were held concurrently with the presidential election, as inconclusive.”
The cancellation impacted 301,499 registered voters in 471 polling units across the affected local government areas, according to the petitioners.
“The petitioners contend that the 1st Respondent wrongfully entered incorrect results for the petitioners in Borno State,” according to the petition. The petitioners contend that the 1st Respondent made numerous illegal entries and inscriptions that were not records of lawful votes cast at polling units, and that these votes are liable to be voided.
“In the case of Borno State, despite the representations of the 1st Respondent’s agents based on the provisions of the Electoral Act and the INEC Manual and Guidelines, there was a deliberate bypass of the use of the BVAS machines.”
The petitioners asked the court for a ruling that “the 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the election and, as a result, the declaration and return of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent as the winner of the presidential election conducted on the 25th day of February, 2023 is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, undue, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”
They also asked for a ruling that “the return of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent was wrongful, unlawful, undue, null and void, having failed to satisfy the requirements of the Electoral Act 2022 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which mandatorily requires the 2nd Respondent to score not less than one-quarter (25%) of the lawful votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states
They also urged the court to rule that Tinubu was ineligible to run for office at the time of the election.
In the alternative, the petitioners asked that “the 1st Petitioner, having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the presidential election of Saturday, 25 February, 2023, be returned as the winner of the said election and be sworn in as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
“An Order directing the First Respondent to hold a run-off election between the First Petitioner and the Second Respondent.”
In addition, the petitioners requested that “the election to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on February 25, 2023 be annulled and a fresh election (re-run) ordered.”
Protesters Storm National Assembly, Demand Presidential Election Be Cancelled
Protesters stormed the National Assembly in Abuja yesterday to express their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the February 25 presidential election. They carried placards with messages such as “Save our Democracy,” “Politicians are Killing our Democracy,” and “INEC is Killing Nigerian Democracy.”
They reiterated their earlier call for the 2023 presidential election to be canceled.
The protest, which began at the Unity Fountain in Maitama, paralyzed vehicular movement in the nation’s capital for several hours.
The demonstrators, on the other hand, encountered stiff resistance when they were denied entry into the National Assembly premises by security personnel.
The Divisional Police Officer (DPO) at the National Assembly, who arrived to address the protesters, stated that they would not be allowed into the National Assembly premises because there was no written permission from the group or the relevant authorities.
Dr. Moses Ogidi Paul, leader and co-convener of the Free Nigeria Group, described INEC as a failed institution while speaking to journalists.
Paul demanded that the INEC chairman be arrested and prosecuted for supervising what he called a fraudulent presidential election.
Other members of the group expressed their displeasure with the way the presidential election was conducted.
This came less than 24 hours after the group staged a similar protest at INEC headquarters, demanding the immediate removal of the INEC chairman.
The British High Commission promises to monitor legal proceedings.
The British High Commission in Nigeria has promised to monitor the legal proceedings regarding the presidential election results. This was stated in a signed statement issued yesterday by Atinuke Akande-Alegbe, Senior Communications and Public Diplomacy Officer, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) of the British High Commission.
According to the statement, the British High Commission observed the governorship elections on March 18. According to the report, the commission dispatched teams to Benue, Enugu, Kano, Lagos, Oyo, and Rivers states.
“We observed improvements in elections logistics by INEC during the gubernatorial elections, particularly when compared to the presidential elections,” the high commission stated.
“There was more evidence of BVAS and IREV working, and results were uploaded in real time from polling units and collation centers.” These are encouraging signs for future elections.
“However, there were some significant points of concern.” Members of our observation mission witnessed violence and voter suppression in a number of polling places. We witnessed and heard credible reports from other observer missions and civil society organizations of vote buying and voter intimidation, as well as the destruction and hijacking of election materials and general disruption of the process in a number of states, including Lagos, Enugu, and Rivers.
“In addition, we observed instances of journalist harassment.” Freedom of expression and a free press are essential for a healthy democracy, and journalists must be able to do their jobs without fear of reprisal.”
It went on to say that the UK was concerned about some public and political figures using “inflammatory ethno-religious language.” We urge all leaders to not only distance themselves from such language, but also to prevent those who speak on their behalf from using it.
“Many Nigerians were willing to vote despite intimidation and hostility, demonstrating their commitment to democracy.”
The statement recalled that on February 21, the UK Minister of State for Development and Africa, Andrew Mitchell MP, stated that the UK was ready to take action against those who engaged in or incited electoral violence and other anti-democratic behavior, noting that “action could include preventing people from obtaining UK visas or imposing sanctions under the human rights sanctions regime.”
The statement revealed that relevant information was being gathered in order to take action against certain individuals.
“We urge any party or individual who wishes to challenge the process or outcome of the elections to do so peacefully and through the appropriate legal channels,” the statement continued.
“We will monitor the progress of legal challenges.”
“The 2023 elections are not only important to Nigeria and Nigerians, but to Africa and the world as a whole,” it insisted. As a long-term partner, the United Kingdom is committed to strengthening ties between our countries and peoples, including through support for democratic development.”
(TNT)
About the Author
983487 552256Yeah bookmaking this wasnt a risky determination outstanding post! . 909919