Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar and his party have filed 35 grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) judgment which dismissed their bid to upturn the victory of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the February 25 presidential election.
Also yesterday, Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate Peter Obi and his party filled 51 grounds asking the Supreme Court to void the PEPC decision.
The candidates and their parties filed their appeals 48 hours ahead of todays’ deadline, the 14th day after the September 6 judgment by the Court of Appeal panel, sitting at the presidential election tribunal. The five-man panel was led by Justice Haruna Tsammani.
The verdict, which was unanimous declared the petitions by PDP, LP, the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and their candidates as unmeritorious, lacking a merit and for failure prove their cases beyond reasonable doubt.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeals, and the Supreme Court is yet to name the seven-man panel that will hear them.
Led by Dr Livy Uzokwu (SAN), Obi and his party filed appeal, praying the apex court to void Tinubu’s victory.
In the notice of appeal, the PDP and Atiku are contending, among others, that the judgment of the PEPC is against the weight of evidence.
They are equally contending that the PEPC “erred in law when it refused to uphold the mandatory electronic transmission of results for confirmation and verification of final results introduced by the Electoral Act 2022 for transparency and integrity of results in accordance with the principles of the Act.”
According to them, the Electoral Act 2022 introduced technology in the conduct of elections, particularly in the transmission and collation of results, being part of the election process easily susceptible to manipulation and compromise.
In ground two, the appellants argued that the PEPC erred when, despite the clear provisions of enabling statutes, including the constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, the Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections and the Manual for Election Officials, it still proceeded to hold that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) was not meant to be used to electronically transmit or transfer the results of the polling unit direct to the collation system.
They also faulted the PEPC for holding that the INEC Result Viewing portal (IRev) was not a collation system.
The appellants faulted the PEPC for holding that the requirement of electronic transmission of the result of the election directly from the polling units to the INEC collation system is not a requirement of the Electoral Act, 2022.
//
They are of the view that Section 60(5) of the Electoral Act,2022 makes it mandatory for the Presiding Officer to transfer the result of the election in the polling
unit together with the total number of accredited voters in such manner as INEC may determine.
In ground four, the PDP and Atiku are contending that the PEPC erred when it failed to hold that the non-use of electronically transmitted results by the 1st respondent’s (INEC’s)Collation Officers and Returning Officers for the collation and verification of election results before announcement, constitutes non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
According to them, the PEPC erred in law when it failed to determine the case of the appellants with respect to the mandatory verificatons and confirmations required before the announcement of the result of the presidential election, pursuant to Section 64(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
Rhapathon468x60
Read Also: Build parliamentary capacity to tackle insecurity, says clerk
They also faulted the PEPC for failing “to nullify the presidential election held on 25th February 2023 on the ground of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 when, by evidence before the court, the 1st respondent (INEC) conducted the election based on very grave and gross misrepresentation ,contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the ‘doctrine of legitimate expectation.’
Obi’s, LP’s 51 grounds of appeal
In their 51-ground notice of appeal, LP and Obi prayed the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the PEPC and grant the reliefs in the petition originally filed before the PEPC.
They faulted the PEPC for holding that “where the dispute involves the election in as many as 895 polling units, the pleadings in this petition, which alleged electoral malpractices, non-compliance and/or offences in some polling units, many polling units or several polling units cannot be said to have met the requirements of pleadings as stipulated in Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act and/or Order 13 Rules 4(1), 5 and (6)(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009.”
They also faulted the PEPC for holding that the paragraphs of their reply to the 2nd and 3rd respondents (President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima) introduced new issues, contrary to Paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.
They contended that the PEPC erred in law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when they held that the onus was on them (the appellants) to prove that INEC failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 73(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022 in the conduct of the presidential election.
The appellants argued that PEPC erred in law when they held that, among others, any written statement on oath of a witness, filed outside the 21-day limitation will amount to a surreptitious amendment of the petition and a breach of paragraph 14 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, irrespective of whether the witnesses to be called are ordinary or expert witnesses, or whether they are willing or subpoenaed witnesses.
They also contented that the PEPC “erred in law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when it abdicated its primary duty of making findings on the material issue of estoppel that the appellants raised against the 1st respondent (INEC) on the electronic transmission of polling units results to the IReV.”
According to them, “the learned Justices of the court below erred in law and came to a perverse decision when they held that PW3, PW4, PW, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11 and P’W13 were not witnesses of the court, but those of the appellants, who had paid fees for the issuance of the subpoena.”
They added: “The learned trial Justices of the court below erred in law when they held that since Exhibit X2 was a copy of the European Union Election Observation Mission Nigeria 2023 Final Report, certified by the Registry of the Court of Appeal and not by the European Union Election Observation Mission, ‘which is the custodian of the original copy of the document.”
The Publicity Secretary of the Abure-led faction of LP, Obiora Ifoh, said in a statement that LP and Obi will be represented by a team of lawyers, led by Dr Livy Uzokwu (SAN).
The statement reads: “In their reliefs, Obi and the Labour Party sought from the apex Court four key points: allow the Appeal, set aside the perverse Judgment of the PEPC, and grant the Reliefs sought in the petition, either in the main or in the alternative.
“On the issue of the 25% requirement for Abuja, Obi and the Labour Party listed the particulars of error by the PEPC as follows. That the PEPC failed to appreciate that for the President to assume the office or position of the Governor of Abuja, is also under a mandate to secure 25% of the votes cast in the FCT.
“They also accused the PEPC of overlooking the fuller purport of section 299 which will be more glaring on a calm examination of section 301 of the constitution.”
