Peter Obi seeks Election Petition Tribunal to annul Tinubu’s victory

Presidential candidate of Labour Party Peter Obi has submitted his final written address before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.

Obi who in his petition is seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima, said both men were to qualified to contest the 2023 presidential election.

In the final written address, Obi argued that Tinubu was not qualified to contest in the election after forfeiting $460,000 to the US government.

Citing many instances, Obi said Section 137 (1) (d) of the constitution already disqualified Tinubu from contesting in the election.

“It is therefore, submitted that, the 2nd Respondent against whom an Order of Forfeiture was made in Exhibit PAS, which said Order of Forfeiture, has been shown to be the same as a fine, is within the meaning and intendment of Section 137 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, not qualified to contest the Presidential election held on 25th February 2023. Your Lordships, are on this ground urged to uphold the Petitioners claims, seeking for the disqualification of the 2nd Respondent,” he said.

On seeking for Shettima’s disqualification, Obi said the All Progressives Congress contravened the law when it nominated Shettima as its Vice Presidential candidate when he was yet the Senatorial Candidate in Central candidate.

According to the LP candidate, the Supreme Court’s judgement on the same matter in a case involving the PDP cannot invalidate his own case.

“The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) makes it mandatory that every president candidate must nominate a valid Vice-presidential candidate. Section 142, provides as follows: (1) In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this chapter relate, a candidate for an election to the office of President shall not be deemed to be validly nominated unless he nominates another candidate as his associate from the same political party for his running for the office of President, who is to occupy the office of Vice-President and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Vice-President if the candidate for an election to the office of President who nominated him as such associate is duly elected as President in accordance with the provisions aforesaid.

“The provisions of this part of this chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualification, declaration of assets and liabilities and oaths of President shall apply in relation to the office of Vice-President as if references to President were references to Vice-President.

“The unchallenged facts before this Honourable Court are that the 2nd Respondent in purported compliance with this Constitutional requirement nominated the 3rd Respondent as his Vice-Presidential Candidate. He made the nomination on July 14, 2022 while the 3rd Respondent was the Senatorial Candidate of the 4th Respondent for Borno Senatorial District. The was clearly in contravention of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the extant provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, its Manuals, Guidelines and Regulations.

“We submit that the Respondents cannot take refuge under the Supreme Court decision in PDP V INEC & Ors (2023) LPELR-60457 (SC). The decision of the apex court is well decided for the facts and evidence before it. We submit that the case turned on whether another political party who is not an aspirant can challenge the nomination of a party in a pre-election matter. We submit that the comments of the court on the date of withdrawal of the 3rd Respondent is not a ratio of the case. We submit that the date of July 6, 2022 on the letter of withdrawal cannot be the effective date. It is not dispute that the 3rd Respondent signed INEC Senatorial Election Notice of Withdrawal of Candidate Form EC11C on July 15, 2022. Until July 15, 2022, the 3rd Respondent remained in the records of INEC as the Senatorial Candidate of the 4th Respondent for Borno Central Senatorial District. He could not validly accept nomination for the position of Vice-Presidential Candidate of the 2nd Respondent before July 15, 2022. The fact before the Court is that it was on July 14 2022 that the 3rd Respondent signed Form ECl 1A (Notice of Withdrawal of Candidate pursuant to Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2022) with officials of the 4th Respondent.

“We submit that as at July 14, 2022 when he accepted nomination for the position of Vice President of the 2nd Respondent, he was still in the records of the 1st Respondents the Senatorial Candidate of the 4th Respondent for Borno Senatorial District. We submit further that these facts distinguish the decision in PDP V NEC & Ors (2023) LPELR 60457 (SC). These facts were not canvassed before the Supreme Court and they make the said decision not a precedent for this Petition.

“We submit that the candidacy of the gnd Respondent is invalidated by the vitiated, purported and failed nomination of the 3rd Respondent.

“We further submit that, when the 2nd Respondent stood election as the Presidential Candidate of the 4th Respondent, despite his own disqualification by virtue of Section 137 (1) () of the 1999 Constitution as shown above. Both the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were afected by the virus of constitutional and statutory disqualification affecting each and both of them.

“We urge your lordship to resolve this issue in favour of the Petitioners and invalidate the election of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents,” Obi said.

Obi in the final written address also asked the court to set aside the election because INEC failed to comply with the law by not posting all the results on the iRev portal and for Tinubu’s inability to secure at least 25% votes in the FCT.