At Supreme Court, Atiku Lists 35, Obi 51 Grounds to Nullify Tinubu… 

Twelve days after the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) affirmed the election of President Bola Tinubu of All Progressives Congress (APC), the candidates of Peoples Democratic (Party), Atiku Abubakar, and Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, yesterday, presented to the Supreme Court reasons the decision of the tribunal could not stand.

After faulting the tribunal’s refusal to void the poll over the “doctrine of legitimate expectation”, Atiku filed 35 grounds of appeal, including the fact that the tribunal erred in its decision on electronic transmission, the 25 per cent votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and, as such, requested a rerun between him and Tinubu alone.

Obi, a former governor of Anambra State, who filed 51 grounds of appeal, wanted the apex court to allow his appeal, set aside the tribunal judgement, and grant reliefs sought in his petition, either in the main or in the alternative.

A five-member panel of the tribunal had on September 6 upheld the declaration of Tinubu as winner of the February 25 presidential election. The panel, in a unanimous decision, held that Atiku as well as other petitioners against the February 25 presidential election were unable to substantiate their allegations against the poll conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, in its judgement, held that the documentary and oral evidences presented before it could not prove claims of irregularities, corrupt practices, non-compliance, among other claims, for which Atiku had asked the court to void Tinubu’s election.

Atiku, who came second in the poll, claimed that he, and not Tinubu, won majority of lawful votes cast at the election, and contended that the electoral umpire manipulated the process in favour of Tinubu.

Obi and his party, while approaching the apex court with their appeal predicated on 51 grounds, alleged that the decision of the lower tribunal was “perverse” in its entirety, except in the rulings in its favour.

Obi and LP, in their Notice of Appeal filed yesterday, faulted the judgement of the tribunal for being against the weight of evidence adduced by the appellants.

The appellants, through their lead counsel, Dr Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, told the apex court that “the learned Justices of the Court below erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion when they found and held they did not in their petition specify the particular polling units where the alleged irregularities and malpractices occurred, or specify the figures of the votes or scores which they alleged have been suppressed, deflated or inflated.”

The appellants submitted that the details of the polling units were contained in the spreadsheets and forensic analysis reports, which they had incorporated and made part of their pleadings by reference.

In another ground of the appeal, Obi and LP argued that the striking out of certain paragraphs in their petition by the court amounted to a blatant denial of their right to fair hearing and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.