By Sylvester Udemezue
1.TRIBUNAL: On the allegation that Tinubu was convicted in the USA and as such disqualified from contesting on grounds of “previous conviction,” the Tribunal held that this ground of the Petitioners’ petition “fails,” because there is no evidence that Tinubu was convicted of any criminal offence involving fraud or dishonesty in Nigeria or elsewhere within the 10 years preceding the 2023 election.
2. TRIBUNAL: INEC is not under any obligation (is not mandated) to electronically transmit election results. The Tribunal held that the Federal High Court has already decided that against Labour Party and LP did not appeal the decision. It is therefore, binding on them. According to the Tribunal, the Court of Appeal has earlier also decided same issue against Labour Party. The tribunal said it’s bound by the CA’s decision that INEC is not under any obligation to electronically transmit election results.
3. TRIBUNAL: The Electoral Act does not specifically provide for electronic transmission of election results. According to the Tribunal, the Act uses the words “transfer”, “move” and “transmission” interchangeably to mean movement from one place to another, until the results are finally collated by INEC.
4. TRIBUNAL: The Electoral Act and the INEC Regulations and Guidelines provide for only “manual collation” of election results; there is no provisions for mandatory electronic transmission or collation of election results. The only collation system provided for by the Act and the Regulations, are the various “collation centres”.
5. TRIBUNAL: The Petitioners have failed to show that the INEC’s failure to electronically transmit election results was deliberate, with a view to manipulate the results. On their part, the petitioners have provided unchallenged evidence to show that INEC’s failure to electronically transmit election results was due to a technical glitch.
6.TRIBUNAL: INEC has no obligation to electronically transmit election results. Hence, failure to electronically transmit election results cannot be a valid ground for questioning an election under the Electoral Act, 2022.
7. TRIBUNAL: From the totality of evidence, the petitioners have failed to prove substantial non-compliance by INEC with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
Issue 2 is hereby resolved against the petitioners.
8. TRIBUNAL: The Petitioners have failed to prove their allegation of irregularities, malpractices or fraud during the election and over-voting. “Issue 3” Is accordingly resolved against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.
9. TRIBUNAL: A candidate who has won up to 25 percent votes in each of at least 25 states in Nigeria, does not need to win 25 percent of the votes in the FCT Abuja. Abuja is one of the states in Nigeria; Abuja is not different from the other states, does not enjoy any special status. “Issue 4” (Regarding 25 percent votes in the FCT Abuja) is hereby resolved against the petitioners and in favour of the Respondents.
10. TRIBUNAL’S CONCLUSION AND JUDGMENT: Having resolved all the issues against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents, I hold that this petition is “unmeritorious”.
Share your thoughts on the story, A Summary Of The PEPT Judgement On Peter Obi Petition with Nigerian Kicker in the comments section.