Stephen Ukandu, Umuahia
There is anxiety in Nigeria’s political space as the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, reserved judgment on the petition filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the February 25 presidential poll, Atiku Abubakar, against President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, APC.
All parties in the suit adopted their final written addresses before the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel okayed the matter for judgement.
The date for judgment is to be communicated to all parties later.
Meanwhile, Atiku, through his Lead Counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, had urged the Court to declare that President Tinubu was not ab-initio, qualified to participate in the presidential poll.
In the alternative, the Petitioners, urged the court to nullify the entire outcome of the presidential election and order a re-run or fresh contest.
They accused the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, of deliberately sabotaging its own technologies and laws to favour the APC candidate.
According to the Petitioners, despite receiving over N355 billion for the conduct of the election, INEC deliberately frustrated all the technological innovations it introduced for the polls in its desperation to compromise the outcome in favour of Tinubu.
“A whopping N355bn was deployed for the election, therefore, INEC owe this court and the nation an explanation,” the Petitioners said.
According to them, the refusal of the electoral umpire to electronically transmit the presidential poll results from polling units was a gross violation of the Electoral Act.
“On the issue of transmission of election results based on new provisions in the Electoral Act, we are all in agreement, including the INEC, that there is a new regime in election management.
“The essence of the innovation was to enhance transparency in the collation of results, which was an area that we usually had problems and not the actual election, and secondly, to enhance the integrity of result declared.
“We agree that INEC had an option and we brought a video evidence by INEC Chairman showing that the electoral body indeed chose an option.
“It is our contention and it is here in evidence that witnesses admitted that results from the National Assembly election were transmitted but that of the presidential election was not.
“It is our submission that there was no technical glitch on the election day, rather, there was a deliberate bypass of the technology in order to create room for the manipulation that eventually took place.
“Until the court makes a judicial pronouncement, there may not be compliance to express provisions of the new regime of the Electoral Act.
“My lords, in a situation like this, the burden shifts on INEC to explain. It is not on the Petitioner to explain why there was such technical glitch.
“We urge this court to hold that there was a deliberate non-compliance. The substantiality of the non-compliance lies on the national spread of the non-transmission of results. It was national and not limited to certain polling units,” the Petitioners’ legal team argued.
Meanwhile, all the Respondents including Tinubu, APC and INEC, through their respective lawyers, urged the tribunal to throw away the petitions, saying they “are grossly lacking in merit.”
Tinubu’s Lead Counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, told the Court that the petitioners failed to establish why the presidential poll should be nullified.
He insisted that Tinubu won majority of the total valid votes cast, and was duly returned.
