The National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal in Kogi State has nullified the victory of Senator Abubakar Ohere as the winner of the Kogi Central senatorial election.

The declared Natasha Akpoti-Uduagan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as winner of the February 25 parliamentary election.

Advertorial

In a unanimous judgment of the 3-man panel, the tribunal chairman, Justice K. A. Orjiako, said Ohere’s results were inflated in 9 polling units of Ajaokuta LGA in the said election.

He added that votes of the PDP candidate in the said election was intentional reduced in 9 polling units by the INEC Ward Collation officers.

Justice K. A. Orjiako also stated that 3 other polling units results was deliberately not entered for the PDP candidate in the same LGA.

The tribunal chairman said Natasha results in the 9 polling units of Ajaokuta LGA was 1,073 against the 77 that was recorded by the Ward Collation officers, stressing, that of the APC candidate was inflated to 1,553 against the actual figure of 1,031.

“The Tribunal is also convinced that the petitioner’s 996 votes in polling units 009, 046 and O49 polling units of Ganaja village of Ajaokuta LGA was deliberately not recorded at the Ward Collation centre,” Justice Orjiako held.

The tribunal added that it is not the duty of collation officers to reject results submitted by presiding officers from polling units in election that followed the electoral guidelines substantially.

He added that “the issues raised by the petitioner is hereby resolved in favour of the petitioners and after making the proper correction, Natasha Akpoti-Uduagan (PDP) having polled 54,074 against Abubakar Ohere (APC) who polled 51,291 is hereby declared the authentic winner.”

The tribunal, therefore, subsequently ordered the 3rd respondent (INEC) to withdraw the certificate of returns issued to Ohere and issue same to the PDP Candidate.

However, the court chided INEC for deliberately going out of its mandate of conducting a free and fair election by conniving with political parties to subvert the will of the people.

The tribunal therefore ordered INEC to pay N500,000 to the PDP candidate for ‘subverting justice’ in the Senatorial election.

In his response, Johnson Usman (SAN) , counsel to Natasha Akpoti-Uduagan, said the judgment has now validated the true winner of the Central Senatorial District election.

“This is victory for people of Kogi Central Senatorial district, victory for Kogi on general and victory for the election processes”, he said .

The Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, has dismissed the allegation that President Bola Tinubu was convicted in the United States of America, USA, on a drug trafficking related charge.

The court, in its lead judgement in the joint petition that was filed by the Labour Party and its candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, held that evidence before it established that the $460, 000 fine that was imposed on Tinubu in the US, was in a civil matter.

Advertorial

It held that such fine did not translate to a criminal conviction that was capable of warranting Tibubu’s disqualification from contesting the presidential election that held on February 25.

Justice Haruna Tsammani, who led the five-member panel, held that a careful perusal of exhibits that were adduced before the court, showed that the case that led to the fine that was awarded against President Tinubu, “was in the civil docket” of the court in the US.

He held that contrary to the contention of the Petitioners, the case, was a civil forfeiture proceeding against funds that were in the bank and not an action that was against Tinubu as a person.

He described such civil forfeiture proceeding as a unique remedy that is targeted at a property and not the owner.

More so, the court held that Obi and the LP failed to show that Tinubu was indicted, arraigned, tried or convicted for any criminal offence in the USA.

The court further noted that following a letter the Inspector General of Police wrote in 2003, the American Embassy, confirmed that there was no criminal record against Tinubu in its centralized information center.

It held that both the letter from the IGP and the response from the US Embassy, were public documents that are admissible in evidence.

The court maintained that the Petitioners did not produce any evidence to establish that Tinubu was tried and convicted for an offence involving of dishonesty.

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has rejected, a copy of the report on the last presidential election made by the European Union (EU) Election Observers Mission tendered by Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP).

The court held that the document was obtained by the petitioners from its registry, which was certified by its staff who is not a person with original custody of the document that was produced by the EU mission.

Advertorial

Recall that the actual copy of the report was earlier tendered by Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) while prosecuting their petition before the court.

The court also rejected the 18088 blurred results sheets tendered by the petitioners on the grounds that they were not tied to any polling units to which the results related, which the petitioners failed to specify in their petition.

The court held that the petitioners lied that they could not identify the polling units because the result sheets were blurred. It noted that one of the same petitioners’ witnesses actually produced a report in which he analysed the same results, which he claimed to have sourced from INEC’s results viewing platform.

It further noted that having admitted that its agents signed for and collected copies of the result sheets, the petitioners cannot claim not to know the polling units affected, but merely chose not to specify the polling units in their petition.

The Presidential Election Petition Court has said it is irrelevant that President Bola Tinubu failed to score 25% of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of the states of the federation, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Peter Obi and the Labour Party had prayed the court to declare him as the candidate that secured the majority of the lawful votes cast with the required constitutional spread of not less than 25% of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of the states of the federation, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Advertorial

But in its ruling on Wednesday, the court held that it is irrelevant.

It agrees with the argument of the respondent that “the FCT does not enjoy a special status and that Abuja is inhabited by Nigerians and that Abuja does not enjoy any special privilege.”

“It was observed as irrelevant,” it held.

Earlier the court said Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP) failed to prove anomalies in their petition against President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima.

The Presidential Election Petitions Court has struck out the evidence of three witnesses of the Labour Party (LP) filed against the provisions of the law.

Reading the main judgment in the petition filed by Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP), Justice Haruna Tsammani held that the witness’ statements were incompetent having been made in breach of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Advertorial

The justice held that three of the 13 witnesses called by LP: Professor Eric Ofoedu of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka (PW 4); Ijeoma Osamor of the AIT (PW7); and Clarita Ogar of Amazon Web Services (PW 8) were inadmissible in evidence.

He explained that Ofoedu admitted in evidence that he was hired and began work before the election.

He added that Osamor admitted in evidence that the video recordings of INEC chairman, Professor Mahmoud Yakubu were downloaded online.

Justice Tsammani held that Ogar admitted to being an interested party in the petition as a House of Representative candidate of the LP, adding that she also admitted to attending the court hearings as a witness, against the rules of the court.

The Presidential Election Petitions Court has held that the All Progressives Congress (APC) lacks the locus standi to challenge Peter Obi’s membership of the Labour Pary (LP).

APC and Bola Tinubu had in their petitions argued that Obi’s name was not contained in the list of LP members forwarded to INEC on April 25, 2022 and breached Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Advertorial

But in the lead judgment on the objections by the APC against the petitions of Obi and the LP, Justice Abba Bello Mohammed held that the matter was solely an internal affair of the political party.

“It is only the second respondent (LP) that has the sole prerogative of determining those who are its members,” he said.

Justice Mohammed also dismissed APC’s objection on the non-joinder of PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar in Obi and LP’s petition challenging the results of the election for him (Atiku) not being a necessary party in the petition.

It has been 100 days since the inauguration of Governor Peter Mbah of Enugu state.

How do you think the present administration has performed?

On facebook, Simon Edeh wrote;

“100 Days In Office: Ndi Enugu Have Seen That There Is No Tomorrow With Mbah.
There is no better way to describe a scam than what we have in Enugu State now.
Promises without action.
What we see everyday is showbiz with collaborators.”

Advertorial

“Government is not about profit making, it is about protection of lives, property and promotion of the wellbeing of the citizens.
Within 27 days, justice will prevail and Ndi Enugu will rejoice again.”

Send your thoughts and comment to Daily Gazette

The Presidential Election Petitions Court has declared that it lacks the powers to hear the petition of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) challenging the qualification.

The Presidential Election Petitions Court has declared that it lacks the powers to hear the petition of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) challenging the qualification of President Bola Tinubu and Kashim Shettima.

Advertorial

Reading the lead judgment on Wednesday, Justice Haruna Tsammani held that the issues brought before the tribunal are pre-election matters, which ought to have been at a high court.

He added that the timeframe of 180 days within which to determine the issue had elapsed.

“In Alhassan and others versus Ishaku and others, it was held that an election tribunal has no jurisdiction on the primary of a political party,” he said.

He said the matters of qualification and disqualification are guided by the provisions of sections 131 and 137(1)(a)(j) of the Nigerian Constitution.

He held that issue complained of was an internal affair of a political party.

APM had contended that Tinubu and Shettima were not validly nominated to contest the February 25. They argue that by the combined reading of sections 131(c) and 142(2) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 and Section 133 of the Electoral Act made them to invalid.

They contend that when Kabiru Masari announced his withdrawal as an APC placeholder on June 24, 2022 to the date Shettima’s name was forwarded to INEC on July 14, 2022, was 21 days which breached Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022, which provides for 14 days for the replacement of a candidate for an election.

The Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, has commenced the delivery of judgement on the petition the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, filed to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu.

The five-member panel of the court led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, had disclosed that it would not read everything in the judgement, especially all the arguments that were canvassed during the hearing.

The panel further stressed that though all the three cases challenging President Tinubu’s election were consolidated, the petitions will however maintain their separate identities.

Whereas the petition by the Labour Party and its candidate in the presidential election that held on February 25, Peter Obi, was called first, however, the panel, kick-started its verdict with that of the APM.

Cited as 1st to 5th defendants in APM’s petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, are the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, and Mr. Kabiru Masari.

Advertorial

During the hearing, while the petitioner, through its lawyer, Mr. Andrew Malgwi, SAN, urged the court to sack Tinubu and withdraw the Certificate of Return that was issued to him by INEC, on the other hand, all the Defendants prayed the court to dismiss the case for want of competence.

President Tinubu, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, maintained that the petition the APM lodged against him, lacked merit.

He argued that the sole issue the party relied upon to seek his sack from office, which bordered on allegation that his Vice President, Shettima, was nominated twice by the APC for different elective positions, had already been decided by the supreme Court.

President Tinubu argued that APM’s petition did not only fail to disclose a reasonably cause of action against him, but was equally bereft of substance.

Likewise, both counsel for the APC, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, and that of INEC, Mr. Steven Adehi, SAN, separately urged the court to dismiss the petition.

Whereas APC told the court that Tinubu’s nomination and eligibility to contest the presidential election that held on February 25, was without fault, on its part, INEC, threw its weight behind the outcome of the poll.

After it had listened to all the parties, the Justice Tsammani-led panel said it would communicate the judgement date to them.

It will be recalled that the APM closed its case on June 21, after its lone witness testified before the court.

Specifically, APM, in its petition, contended that the withdrawal of Mr. Masari, who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Shettima.

It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

According to the petitioner, as at the time Tinubu announced Shettima as the Vice Presidential candidate, “he was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regards to the provisions of section 142 of the 1999 Constitution”.

More so, APM, contended that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that his subsequent withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.

It, therefore, prayed the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC as at February 25 when the election was conducted by INEC having violated the provisions the of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

“An order nullifying and voiding all the votes scored by Tinubu in the presidential election in view of his non-qualification as a candidate of the APC”.

As well as an order to set aside the Certificate of Return that was issued to the President by INEC.

The court had on May 30, suspended further proceedings in the matter after counsel to President Tinubu, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, drew its attention to a judgement of the Supreme Court which he said settled the issue the APM raised in its petition.

Chief Olanipekun, SAN, maintained that an appeal the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, filed against President Tinubu, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, bordered on the legality or otherwise of his client’s nomination to contest the election by the APC.

He argued that the said judgement of the apex court touched on the substance of APM’s petition.

Tinubu’s lawyer stressed that the only ground the APM canvassed in its petition, was the fact that the Vice President, Shettima, had double nominations, prior to the presidential election that held on February 25.

Insisting that the issue had since been settled by the Supreme Court, Tinubu’s lead counsel, said: “As officers of this court, it behoves us to assist the court in all circumstances and also bring to the attention of yours lordships, decisions of courts, even from other jurisdictions, which relate to any matter pending before yours lordships.

“Even if those decisions do not necessarily align with the interest of our clients. If becomes more imperative if we are aware or abreast of any decision of the Supreme Court which touches on matters within the proceedings before your lordships.

“In this wise my lords, this particular petition which has just been called in respect of which the sole issue that is being ventilated is the nomination of the 1st Respondent who we represent.

“We are aware that the Supreme Court gave a judgement on the issue on Friday, May 23, in respect of appeal No: SC/CV/501/2023, and the parties involved were PDP Vs INEC& 3 Ors, where the apex court considered all the issues and resolved them.

“We will confirm from the petitioners, whether in the light of the Supreme Court decision, there will still be the need to continue with this petition,” he added.

Following its decision not to withdraw the petition, the APM tendered in evidence before the court, exhibits it said would establish its case that Tinubu was ineligible to contest the presidential election.

Part of exhibits the petitioner tendered in evidence through the witness, Aisha Abubakar, who identified herself as the Assistant Welfare Director of the party, included documents on Masari’s withdrawal as Tinubu’s running mate for the election.

However, before the witness could exit the box, APC’s lead counsel, Prince Fagbemi, SAN, tendered through her, a copy of the Supreme Court judgement which the Respondents said had earlier settled the issue the APM raised in the petition.

On his part, INEC’s lawyer, Mr. Kemi Pinhero, tendered before the court, a letter dated July 6, which the APC wrote to Chairman of the Commission, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, notifying him of the withdrawal of Shettima’s nomination as its senatorial candidate in Borno state.

Equally admitted in evidence by the court was a letter that indicated that one Mr. Lawal Kaka Shehu, was subsequently nominated to replace Shettima as APC’s flag-bearer for senatorial poll.

After the witness was discharged from the box, a Deputy Director at the INEC, Mr. John Arabs, who was summoned through a subpoena, produced and tendered documents in evidence, among which included the “original online form” which Shettima submitted to indicate his withdrawal from the senatorial race.

Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, counsel to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has said that though all eyes are on the Nigerian judiciary, those who are expecting wonders to happen at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on Wednesday (today) may be disappointed and may have a quagmire to contend with.

Ejiofor said this in a statement he personally signed and released on Tuesday night which he captioned, “Elucidation of Fact on the Pun called “Nigeria”: Though Very Unfortunate, But for those still expecting Manna to fall from Heaven tomorrow.”

Advertorial

The legal luminary said that “For those expecting wonders to happen in Court tomorrow, you may have a quagmire to contend with.”

According to him, in Law School, law students are taught that decisions of the courts on any subject must be predicated on the following: the Substantive Laws; Rules of Court and Courts Practice Direction and Judicial Precedents – in this case, it means the Judgment/decisions of the Superior Courts, particularly the Supreme Court’s Judgments on similar subjects, facts, and circumstances.

“Any Judgment founded outside the above considerations cannot stand in Law.”

Ejiofor recalled that October 13, 2022, “The intermediate Court in the land, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division delivered a unanimous landmark Judgment in an Appeal filed by Nnamdi Kanu, wherein the Court of Appeal discharged Nnamdi Kanu of all the frivolous charge filed against him and consequently, directed the Federal Government to release him unconditionally.

“The penultimate Court proceeded to prohibit Nnamdi Kanu’s further detention in any detention facility in Nigeria and forbade Nnamdi Kanu from being tried again in any Court in Nigeria on any offence whatsoever.

“The penultimate Court did not stop at that; the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal unanimously reprimanded the Federal Government for their act of lawlessness in the way Nnamdi Kanu was abducted in Kenya and extraordinarily renditioned to Nigeria. They further declared it as an egregious violation of the extant Laws – local and international – by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

“Curiously, on the 24th October, 2022, a different Panel of Justices of the same Court of Appeal, was constituted, which sat and consequently granted an unprecedented Order, Staying the Execution of Nnamdi Kanu’s constitutionally guaranteed right to personal liberty. Intrinsically, staying the Execution of the same Judgment and far-reaching Orders made by the same Court.

“The fact is that throughout the said Ruling delivered on the 24th day of October, 2022, and argument canvassed by the parties giving rise to the Ruling; there was no place that the Federal Government referred to any criminal decisions of either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in similar facts, if any, or substantive criminal Laws governing the criminal appeals or Court of Appeal Criminal Practice Direction.

“We refer to the unpopular Ruling as unprecedented because the precedents and authorities relied upon by this Panel in staying the execution of the judgment in a criminal appeal, were all civil cases and the Court of Appeal Rules on civil appeals.”

He pointed out that on Wednesday, “a very renowned Justice of the Court of Appeal who presided over the Panel that delivered this unprecedented Ruling and consequently granted the unpopular order staying the execution of the landmark Judgment in Nnamdi Kanu’s criminal appeal; and who incidentally, also presided over the proceedings at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, will also be delivering his own judgment.

“In view of the fate of Nnamdi Kanu and the obvious travesty of justice in his case, we can only wish those hoping that justice prevails tomorrow, godspeed, even as all eyes are now on the Judiciary.”