BY ANDREW OROLUA
Atiku Abubakar the Presidential candidate of People Democratic Party PDP, and the party have asked the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal,PEPT, to nullify the declaration of Ahmed Bola Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress, APC, as the winner of February 25, 2023 presidential election.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, had on March 1, 2023 declared Tinubu as the winner of the election with 8,794,726 votes and Atiku Abubakar as the runner up with 6, 984,520 votes while Peter Obi of Labour party had 6,101,533 votes.
In a petition filed late Tuesday by his lead counsel Chief Joe- Kyari Gadzama SAN, against the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Tinubu Ahmed Bola and All Progressive Congress, APC, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively, Atiku said that INEC declaration of Tinubu as President-elect is unconstitutional, null and void .
Atiku prayed the tribunal to hold that Tinubu “the 2nd respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the Election and therefore the declaration and return of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent as the winner of the Presidential Election conducted on the 25th day of February, 2023 is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, undue, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”
To further hold that the return of Tinubu the 2nd Respondent by INEC, “the 1st Respondent was wrongful, unlawful, undue, null and void having not satisfied the requirements of the Electoral Act 2022 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which mandatorily requires the 2nd Respondent to score not less than one quarter (25%) of the lawful votes cast at the Election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”
“That it may be determined that (Tinubu) the 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election.”
Atiku prayed that the election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on 25th February, 2023 be nullified and a fresh election (re-run) ordered between the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent.
In the alternative: “That it may be determined that the 1st Petitioner having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the Presidential election of Saturday, 25th February, 2023, be returned as the winner of the said election and be sworn in as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Atiku who anchored his petition on four grounds argued extensively “that the election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.”
Second, that “the election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices.
Third, that the 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the Election.
And fourth that the 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election.
The Petitioners aver that the election was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, and other extant laws and that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the Election, in that the 2nd Respondent ought not to have been declared or returned as the winner of the Election.
Atiku and PDP state that the Election was not conducted in compliance with the provisions of Sections 47(2) & (3), 60(1), (2) & (5), 64(4)(a) & (b), 64(5), (6), (7) & (8), 71 and 73 of the Electoral Act.
The election was not conducted in line with Paragraphs 3.3.0 and 3.4.0 of the 1st Respondent’s published Manual for Election Officials 2023 (“INEC Manual” or “Manual”), and Paragraphs 19, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, and 62 of the 1st Respondent’s published Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022 (“INEC Regulations” or “Regulations” or “Regulations and Guidelines”).
The Petitioners state that several months and weeks leading to the Election, the 1st Respondent through its Chairman Mahmood Yakubu, had repeatedly assured the general public that the February 2023 general election would be the best election ever, with the guaranteed use of the Bi-Modal Voters’ Accreditation System (“BVAS”) and real-time and direct uploading of the polling unit results to INEC’s electronic collation system and Results Viewing Portal (“IReV”) which were technological innovations in the electoral system that would ensure the transparency of the elections against all forms of manipulation.
The 1st Respondent’s Chairman and its other principal officers including Mr. Festus Okoye, the National Commissioner for Information and Voters Enlightenment, at various times and fora, gave serial undertakings, representations and assurances that the results from the polling units shall be transmitted real time via the BVAS to the electronic collation system and the IReV for public viewing and that such transmission shall be the basis for collation at the various collation levels up to the national collation and return at the Election.
The Petitioners state that contrary to the undertakings, representations and assurances made by INEC ,it proceeded on the 1st day of March 2023 to wrongly return the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the Election when the outcome (herein being challenged) and the results from the polling units including the total number of accredited voters in the respective polling units were yet to be transmitted to the 1st Respondent’s Electronic Collation System .
Neither were the unit results transmitted to the 1st Respondent’s Result Viewing Portal (IReV) as stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2022 and the INEC Guidelines and Manuals and expressly guaranteed to the electorate by the 1st Respondent.
The Petitioners aver that the 1st Respondent had received generous funding from the Federal Government of Nigeria, having informed the public that the 2023 election cost the country the sum of N355 billion.
According to Atiku the 1st Respondent had submitted a budget of N305 billion, out of which a whopping sum of N117 billion was earmarked for the procurement of electronic accreditation and transmission devices, including the Bi-Modal Voters’ Accreditation System (BVAS) a new voter enrolment and voter accreditation device designed to combine the functions of the Direct Data Capture Machine, the Z-Pad, the Smart Card Reader and the portal, IReV a world-wide web portal designed for real time viewing of election results uploaded from polling units.
The 1st Respondent and its Chairman irrevocably committed the 1st Respondent to the deployment and use of the BVAS technology in both accreditation and transmission of the accreditation data and election results from the polling units to the electronic collation system and IRev Portal. Meanwhile, the 1st Respondent had touted the BVAS machine as the election “game changer”.
READ ALSO: “Tinubu holding a dud certificate” – Yusuf Datti makes
The Petitioners further state that the 1st Respondent had prescribed through its various Regulations, Guidelines and Manual, the manner of accreditation, collation and transmission vide its technological device, the BVAS, pursuant to the Electoral Act. The Petitioners shall contend at the hearing of this Petition, that the mandatory requirements of the 1st Respondent in relation to electronic accreditation, collation, and transmission are as set out below:
Accreditation of voters shall be by way of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS).To electronically transmit or transfer the results and the accreditation data from polling units direct to the electronic collation system as prescribed by the 1st Respondent.
Uploading of results shall be with the BVAS to the 1st Respondent’s results Viewing Portal (IReV) directly and in real-time, as prescribed by the 1st Respondent.
Collation and authentication of the results and accreditation data from the polling units at the various collation levels up to the national collation centre shall be with the aid of the Results Verification System.
Atiku and PDP said they shall lead oral and documentary evidence at the hearing in proof of the fact that (a) the result of the Election as announced by the 1st Respondent and especially the votes wrongly allocated to the 2nd Respondent do not represent the lawful valid votes cast.
To show that lawful votes were deliberately and massively deducted from the 1st Petitioner’s scores by the 1st Respondent to facilitate the return of the 2nd Respondent.
The Petitioners state that the 1st Respondent failed to comply with its own Guidelines and representations to transmit results and accreditation data directly and real-time to the IReV and its electronic collation system/storage device before the hasty return and announcement of the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the Election on the 1st day of March 2023.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.