The Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja is preparing to deliver a judgment on three petitions looking to annul President Bola Tinubu’s election.

Before setting a judgment date, a five-member panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, has instructed all involved parties to present their final argument briefs tomorrow.

In a formal notice to the parties, they were asked to present their written addresses concerning the petition lodged against President Tinubu by the former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party candidate, as well as the petition filed by the Labour Party candidate, Mr. Peter Obi.

It’s important to remember that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared on March 1 that Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress representative, won the February 25 presidential election, outperforming 17 other contenders. According to the results, Tinubu won 8,794,726 votes, outdoing Alhaji Atiku from the PDP who got 6,984,520 votes, and Mr. Obi from the LP who secured 6,101,533 votes.

Nevertheless, Atiku and Obi, dissatisfied with the results, appealed to the court to overturn the election. Both claimed in their petitions that they had won the presidential election and questioned Tinubu’s qualification to participate. They also asked the court to declare that President Tinubu didn’t receive the majority of legal votes in the election, and requested the withdrawal of his Certificate of Return from INEC.

In addition to their other requests, the plaintiffs also urged the court to arrange a new presidential election, excluding President Tinubu, who they argue was initially ineligible to participate in the poll.

The 2022 Electoral Act mandates aggrieved candidates to submit a petition to the court within 21 days following the announcement of the election results by INEC. The court is then required to provide a written judgment within 180 days.

On July 5, the court concluded hearing the petitions from both Atiku and Obi.

Obi rested his case after bringing forth 13 witnesses and presenting various documentary exhibits. Atiku, meanwhile, produced 27 witnesses and presented his own exhibits to the court. INEC and President Tinubu each presented one witness in their defense, whereas the APC did not produce any witnesses for the court.

All respondents, in their individual written addresses, encouraged the court to dismiss the petitions due to a lack of merit. They contended that the petitioners failed to satisfy the burden of proof as dictated by law.

The respondents pointed out that while the petitioners made allegations involving criminal elements, they failed to substantiate them beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by law.

President Tinubu has requested the court to affirm his election victory as declared by INEC.

Specifically, Atiku, in his joint petition with his party, filed under case number: CA/PEPC/05/2023, argued that the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election was “invalid due to non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022”. He insisted that Tinubu “was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election” and alleged that Tinubu, cited as the 2nd Respondent, “was not qualified to contest the election” at the time.

In a subsequent document filed by his legal team led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, Atiku informed the court of inconsistencies regarding the President-elect’s actual birth date, attended secondary schools (specifically Government College Ibadan), state of origin, gender, real name, and evidence of university attendance (Chicago State University).

Atiku claimed that the supposed degree certificate from Chicago State University allegedly obtained by the 2nd Respondent does not belong to him, but to a woman (“F”) named Bola Tinubu as stated on the certificate.

Atiku further accused Tinubu of not disclosing to INEC, the 1st Respondent, his voluntary acquisition of Guinean citizenship, complete with Guinean Passport No. D00001551, in addition to his Nigerian citizenship. He then issued a notice to Tinubu to present the original copies of these passports.

Atiku argued that the APC candidate did not meet the constitutional criteria, thereby “being constitutionally unfit to contest for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

Similarly, Obi and LP, in their petition labelled: CA/PEPC/03/2023, contended that Senator Kashim Shettima, Tinubu’s running mate, was still the nominated candidate of the APC for the Borno Central Senatorial election when he became the Vice Presidential candidate.

Obi and LP also questioned Tinubu’s eligibility to run for the presidency, alleging he was previously indicted and fined $460,000 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for dishonesty and drug trafficking. Citing these corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, the petitioners argued that INEC violated its own regulations and guidelines.

They asserted that INEC was required during the presidential election to use technological devices for voter accreditation, verification, continuation, and authentication according to its regulations.

Consequently, they asked the court to not only rule that Tinubu was unqualified to run for the election but also to declare that all votes he received were void due to his disqualification.

The petitioners requested the court to confirm that, once votes attributed to Tinubu are disregarded, Obi received the majority of lawful votes and satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the February 25, 2023, presidential election.

As an alternative, they called for an order to annul the election and compel INEC to conduct a new one, excluding Tinubu, Shettima, and the APC, listed as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents respectively.

The petitioners urged the court to declare that, as Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes, his return as the winner of the presidential election was unlawful, unconstitutional, and completely invalid.

In an additional alternative prayer, Obi, through his legal team led by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, and Awa Kalu, SAN, requested the tribunal to declare the presidential election null and void because it was not conducted in substantial accordance with the Electoral Act 2022 and the amended 1999 Constitution.
They also requested an order “cancelling the presidential election conducted on February 25, 2023, and obliging the 1st Respondent to conduct a fresh election for the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Originally, five petitions were filed to challenge Tinubu’s election. However, on May 8, the Action Alliance, AA, withdrew its case, and two days later, the Action Peoples Party, APP, followed suit by discontinuing its own petition.

The Allied Peoples Movement, APM, which chose not to withdraw its petition, adopted its final written address on July 14, after which the court reserved its judgment on the petition.

In its petition, CA/PEPC/04/2023, APM argued that the withdrawal of Mr. Ibrahim Masari, initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the All Progressives Congress, APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy according to Sections 131(c) and 142 of the amended 1999 Constitution.

The party claimed that there was approximately a three-week gap between when Masari, listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed his intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his nomination, and the time when Tinubu supposedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.

APM further contended that Tinubu’s candidacy had expired by the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.