As the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal enters its final stages, the nation is gripped with unease and anxiety, pondering the outcome that will be determined by the pendulum of justice.
With each passing day, the legal fireworks draw closer to a conclusion, intensifying the anticipation and nervousness surrounding the proceedings.
The tribunal operates under the provisions of section 285(6), which stipulates that a written judgment must be delivered within 180 days from the date of filing the petition.
On July 5th, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal adjourned to reconvene for the adoption of final addresses in the petitions at a later date.
During this phase, the Justice Haruna Tsamani-led panel directed the Respondents to file their final brief of argument within 10 days, while the Petitioners were given seven days to file their own. Additionally, upon receiving the Petitioners’ process, the Respondents were required to file their reply within five days.
The current proceedings are a result of a joint petition filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, alongside Mr. Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP). The respondents in this case include the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Ahmed Bola Tinubu, and the All Progressive Congress (APC).
During the defense phase of the petition, INEC, as the first respondent, concluded its case with only one witness, in contrast to the three witnesses initially registered with the court during the pre-hearing section.
Dr. Lawrence Bayode, testifying on behalf of INEC, admitted that the commission encountered glitches during the presidential election but maintained that these issues did not impact the overall conduct of the election, the collation of results, or the declaration of the final outcome.
Regarding the allegations of blurred result sheets on INEC’s portal, Dr. Bayode, the Deputy Director of Information and Communication, stated that clear result sheets could still be obtained upon request by those in need of them.
President Tinubu, along with Vice President Kashim Shettima, the second and third respondents respectively, submitted 18 exhibits to establish Tinubu’s qualifications for the 2023 Presidential Election. These exhibits included a letter from February 3, 2003, signed by former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Tafa Balogun, requesting Tinubu’s criminal records from the Embassy of the United States of America (USA) in Nigeria.
Furthermore, educational documents were tendered to demonstrate Tinubu’s attendance and graduation from the American University, including his admission letter from the esteemed institution. His US visa documents were also presented, indicating multiple unhindered visits to the United States of America between 2011 and 2021.
In his defense, Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele, a star witness for Tinubu, argued that the votes Tinubu received in Kano State were not properly recorded, asserting a shortfall of approximately 10,929 votes. Senator Bamidele, who is also a lawyer, acknowledged the reports filed by various international bodies, including the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which observed the election.
Regarding the allegations of Tinubu’s involvement in drug-related crimes, the witness maintained that the US court’s decision pertained to a civil proceeding rather than a criminal forfeiture. He emphasized that Tinubu’s election cannot be reversed based on his forfeiture of $460,000 through a court order.
Senator Bamidele contended that, as an attorney who has practiced in the USA since 1999, there could not be a criminal conviction against Tinubu when no charges were filed against him. He emphasized that Tinubu was neither arraigned, indicted, nor sentenced for any criminal charges by any American court, and civil forfeiture cannot replace a criminal trial and conviction.
Regarding Peter Obi’s LP membership status, Senator Bamidele, who previously served as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and is currently the Majority Leader of the Senate, informed the court that the list of LP members forwarded to INEC prior to the presidential election did not include Obi’s name.
In response, counsel to the Petitioners, Dr. Uzoukwu, SAN, presented the final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission to Nigeria as evidence. This report impugned the conduct and outcome of the 2023 general elections.
Senator Bamidele, in his testimonies for both Obi and Atiku’s petitions, admitted that the ECOWAS report on the presidential election, dated February 27, was signed by the former President of the Republic of Sierra Leone, Mr. Ernest Koroma.
Regarding the allegations of Tinubu’s involvement in drug-related crimes, the witness maintained that contrary to the position of the Petitioners, the US court’s decision was a civil proceeding and not a criminal forfeiture. He clarified that the Chicago court order relied on Section 981, not Section 982 as claimed by the Petitioners. Section 981 pertains to civil matters, while Section 982 deals with criminal proceedings.
When it was time for the APC to present its defense, the party’s counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, declared that they would not participate in the “whipping of dead horses.” Fagbemi stated that there was nothing to defend in the separate petitions.
It is worth noting that the petition, which commenced on May 8th, initially involved five petitions from different political parties. However, during the pre-hearing sessions, two of the aggrieved parties, Action Alliance (AA) and the Action Peoples Party (APP), withdrew their petitions.
On July 3rd, Mr. Obi and the LP concluded their case after calling 13 witnesses, despite initially registering 50 witnesses in their pre-hearing schedule. During their testimonies, party agents and INEC officials stated that voter accreditation was seamless but highlighted difficulties in the transmission of presidential election results.
They also claimed that they were made to sign the EC8As forms under duress. The LP agents, totaling 133,000, in contrast to the 176,974 polling units nationwide, strongly insisted that Peter Obi should be declared the winner, emphasizing that many results were not uploaded as promised by INEC.
On the other hand, on March 21st, Atiku Abubakar and the PDP filed their petitions challenging the emergence of President Bola Tinubu in the February 25 elections.
Closing their case on June 23rd, the Petitioners called a total of 27 witnesses, fewer than the 100 witnesses initially submitted in their pre-hearing schedule. They also tendered various documents to substantiate their claims.
As the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal enters its final phase, the nation eagerly awaits the verdict.
The proceedings have witnessed intense arguments, presentation of evidence, and testimonies from both sides.
With 49 days remaining until the conclusion of the tribunal, the anxiety among the parties involved and the public continues to grow.
