I would like to address Peter Obi’s prayers in court regarding the upcoming judgment. When you, Obidients, pray for the court to make the right decision, it is important to first understand the details of your principal’s case.
The argument concerning the issue of the 25% requirement is the weakest one. Section 299 of the Nigerian Constitution clearly states that “The provisions of this constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the states of the Federation.”...CONTINUE READING
To be declared the President of Nigeria, a candidate must secure at least one-fourth (25%) of the votes cast in two-thirds of the entire 36 states of Nigeria and the FCT, which is now considered the 37th state. The only candidate who meets this requirement is Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as he secured 25% in 24 states.
Obi also requests the cancellation of the election due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and the Constitution.
I must say that, according to electoral law and the constitution, Peter Obi did not provide sufficient evidence of non-compliance during the election that affected his votes. His lawyer’s arguments revolved around the unclear upload on IREV and INEC’s failure to upload results from polling units in real-time. I can confirm with 100% certainty that there is no provision in the electoral law or guidelines that make it mandatory for INEC to upload results to IREV in real-time from polling units.
Furthermore, concerning the issue of blurry documents, INEC never made it compulsory to collate results with IREV. The purpose of IREV was mainly for citizens to view results from home. Every party agent received a copy at every polling unit once voting concluded, and the police also received a copy. The electoral law clearly outlines the process: if the INEC hard copy is not available, the collation can proceed using the IREV or the copies held by the agents or police. Therefore, the argument regarding the blurred IREV results is not valid.
Regarding the issue of Shettima’s double nomination, that matter has already been concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Atiku VS INEC.
As for Tinubu’s disqualification based on forfeiture, that argument will also not hold up. Section 137 (d) of the constitution states that a candidate cannot be under a sentence of death imposed by any competent court of law or tribunal in Nigeria or be sentenced to imprisonment or fined for any offense involving dishonesty or fraud within 10 years before the date of the election. Additionally, if the candidate has been convicted and sentenced for an offense involving dishonesty or found guilty of contravening the code of conduct.
Firstly, the issue of $460,000 is a civil forfeiture case against the property and not against Tinubu himself, and there is no indication in that judgment that he was fined. Furthermore, the case occurred in 1993, which is more than 10 years ago. Lastly, the case took place in the US, not in Nigeria, and section 137 (d) clearly refers to a competent court in Nigeria. Additionally, the judgment submitted at the Tribunal was not registered in Nigeria. Therefore, this argument will also be dismissed....CONTINUE READING