Category: Politics Lite

The Presidential candidate of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2023 general elections, Atiku Abubakar, has cautioned against any attempt by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to undermine Nigeria’s democracy.

Atiku also alleged harassment of judiciary officers to subvert justice in the ongoing litigation on the 2023 presidential election.

Abubakar in a statement in Abuja by his Media Adviser, Paul Ibe on Saturday, alleged a plot to intimidate the judges into delivering favourable judgments for the ruling party at the election tribunal.

He said that reports in the media about some heinous plots to harass justices sitting on the petition would not be good for the nation.

Abubakar said that Nigeria’s democracy should not be undermined by using the judiciary to serve the interest of the ruling party.

“Our laws are very clear about the prerequisite of separation of powers as a guarantee of an independent judiciary.

“The idea behind that concept of an independent judiciary is to insulate that branch of government from unholy fraternity between its hallowed members and the rest of the society – especially the political actors.

“Our democracy gives the people of Nigeria the powers to choose their leaders, and our laws demand that our judiciary must be allowed to act independently without harassment and intimidation by the government or powerful interests.

“To compromise the workings of our democracy and seeking to compromise the workings of our judiciary is an open call for anarchy.

“As a party in the litigation that is currently reviewing the outcome of the last presidential election, we wish to express our intentions to do all that is within the law in resisting any attempt to undermine our fragile democracy,” he said.

Abubakar urged Nigerians to abide by the golden rule of eternal vigilance.

He also appealed to all security agencies in the country to remain professional in the discharge of their duties and resist being used as an instrument of oppression and intimidation against the judiciary.

He also called on the international community to watch what was happening in Nigeria with keen interest. 

The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP’s candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting in Abuja, to declare that he won the presidential election held on February 25 in 21 states.

The former vice president said this in a final written address he filed through his team of lawyers led by Chief Chrwere is Uche, SAN.

Atiku, who came second in the presidential poll premised on a reply the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, filed in response to the petition he filed to nullify President Bola Tinubu’s election.

According to him, INEC, in its own final brief of argument, neither disputed, retracted, debunked nor claimed that the averment it made in its reply, was in error.

Specifically, Atiku submitted that INEC had in its reply to his petition, confirmed him as the winner of the presidential contest in Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara state.

He therefore, it is his position that since the electoral body, in its process, asserted that he won the election in 21 states and since it did not rebut the assertion throughout the proceedings, the court should proceed to uphold the declaration.

The final written address, read in part: “Very importantly, the 1st Respondent (INEC) who conducted the election, made an open admission in paragraph 18 of its Reply to the petition, where it unequivocally stated thus:

“The 1st Respondent further avers that in compliance with extant laws and regulations, it diligently discharged its duties when it collated the 1st Petitioner’s scores at the election which aggregates to 6,984,520 winning only 21 States to wit: Adamawa, Akwa Ibom. Bauchi. Bavelsa. Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina. Kebbi. Kogi. Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.”

“Indeed, as admitted by the 1st Respondent (INEC), the 1st Petitioner (Atiku) won in these 21 States.

“It is important to note that throughout the trial, the ist Respondent (INEC) neither refuted nor countermanded this critical averment nor denied it.

“We urge your Lordship to hold that this constitutes an admission that requires no further proof. It also constitutes an admission against interest.

“The 1st Petitioner contested election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the platform of the 2nd Petitioner, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which held on 25th February 2023, along with 17 other candidates, including the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu), who was the candidate of the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), in whose favour the electoral body, the ‘Independent’ National Electoral Commission (INEC) manipulated the technologies earlier put in place to ensure transparency, and wrongfully returned the said 2nd Respondent as winner at about 4.00am on is March 2023, at a time the 1st Respondent admitted that substantial percentage of the results had not to be transmitted to the collation system for verification as required by law.

“Under the cover of the so-called ‘technical glitch’ excuse which the Respondent never explained, the results were deliberately manipulated through suppression and discounting of the votes of the 1st Petitioner and inflation of the votes of the 2nd Respondent.

“This deliberate bypass of the use of the prescribed verification technology was nationwide and substantially affected the outcome of the election.

“The said 1st Respondent equally proceeded to declare the 2nd Respondent winner when the 2nd Respondent did not meet the mandatory constitutional requirement to secure not less than a quarter of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

“This was in addition to the numerous infractions and corrupt practices perpetrated by the Respondents.

“Notwithstanding, the 1st Respondent unequivocally and clearly admitted in its pleadings, namely paragraph 18 at page 13 of its Reply to the Petition, which was never refuted or nor retracted, that the Petitioners won 21 States of the federation in the presidential election, which is an admission against interest.

“As a result of non-use of collation by electronic transmission, the 1st Respondent later altered the admitted result of 21 States for the 1st Petitioner to 12 States,” Atiku added.

It will be recalled that Atiku, who came second in the presidential contest, closed his case before the court, after he called a total of 27 witnesses and tendered documentary Exhibits.

He is among other things, praying the court to withdraw the Certificate of Return that was issued to President Tinubu by INEC.

Atiku and his party contended that President Tinubu “demonstrated inconsistency as to his actual date of birth, secondary schools he attended (Government College Ibadan); his State of origin, gender, actual name; certificates evidencing Universities attended (Chicago State University).”

According to the petitioners, “The 2nd Respondent did not disclose to the 1st Respondent (INEC) his voluntary acquisition of the citizenship of the Republic of Guinea with Guinean Passport No. D00001551, in addition to his Nigerian citizenship. The 2nd Respondent is hereby given notice to produce the original copies of his said two passports,” they added.

The petitioners equally challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election, alleging that he was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460,000.00 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for an offence involving dishonesty and drug trafficking.

The All Progressives Congress, (APC), has said that Alhaji Abubakar Atiku failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his allegation that the presidential election was rigged in favour of President Bola Tinubu.

The APC has also said that Mr. Peter Obi and the Labour Party’s evidence against President Tinubu was minuscule and deficient in credibility.

Both Atiku and Obi and their parties dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), challenging the victory of Tinubu at the Feb. 25 presidential election.

The APC in its final brief of argument filed at the court through its team of lawyers led by Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, argued that Atiku and the PDP were not entitled to any of the reliefs they were asking for in their petition.

The APC held that the petitioners only dumped documents on the court and claimed that such documents were enough evidence to prove their allegations.

The party further argued that the petitioners failed to demonstrate or link the documents to specific allegations they raised against Tinubu’s victory.

According to the APC, it is not enough to merely identify exhibits without making the added effort to demonstrate their relevance by correlating them with witnesses adopted depositions.

 “On the effect of the dumping, we urge your lordships to hold that all the documents have no probative value.

“The fact that the documents were tendered by learned senior counsel for the petitioners from the bar makes the case even worse for them.

“The duty is not on the judge to retreat to his hallowed chamber and engage in a cloistered examination of the documents that were dumped before him in the open court,” the party said.

The party further argued that the allegation of the petitioners that the election was rigged, was not tied to any specific polling unit in the local government areas of each of the 24 states whose elections they challenged in the petition.

They said that the petitioners made blanket allegations and that some of the allegations were criminal in nature.

“The law required that they should be proved through cogent, credible and reliable evidence.”

The party insisted that most of the exhibits tendered by Atiku were not relevant to the petition since they were not pleaded or set out any relevant fact.’

“Aside from the allegation of non-qualification that the petitioners raised against the respondent, all other allegations in their petition are supposed to be set out on polling unit basis or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The party submitted that the case of the petitioners must fall like a pack of cards and prayed the court to dismiss the petition and uphold the election of Tinubu.

On the educational qualification of the president, the party argued that the exhibits tendered in court only established that he indeed attended Chicago State University in the United States and graduated with honours.

The party also held that the petitioners failed to produce the genuine certificate from which the alleged forged certificate was made.

On the alleged forfeiture of 460, 000 dollars following his alleged involvement in a drug-related case, the APC, said there was no evidence that he was ever charged, convicted or fined for any criminal case.

The party held that there were no criminal proceedings or pronouncement of the verdict of guilty against Tinubu to warrant his disqualification.

On the allegation of dual citizenship, the APC argued that his possession of a Guinean Passport was not sufficient grounds to disqualify him from contesting or nullifying his election.

The APC held that the president was a bona fide Nigerian by birth and not by registration or neutralisation.

“A Nigerian-born citizen does not lose his citizenship as a Nigerian or his right to vote or be voted for in an election in Nigeria by acquiring dual citizenship of a second country.”

Moreover, the party held that Tinubu’s sole witness had testified to Tinubu’s Nigerian citizenship.

The party held that the petitioners’ submission that Tinubu did not secure 25 percent of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja, in the presidential election was pedestrian and preposterous.

“The FCT does not enjoy a special status as a constituent unit or a state under Section 134(2) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

“Abuja voters have no veto power to singularly hang the outcome of presidential election that is otherwise conclusive, simply because a candidate did not poll or secure at least one quarter of votes cast in the FCT in a presidential election.

“We submit that there is equality before the ballot.”

The court on July 4, concluded hearing in Atiku’s petition as the respondents closed their defence.

Atiku and his party who came second in the election, approached the PEPC asking the court to nullify the Tinubu’s election and withdraw the certificate of return he was issued.

Atiku and the PDP called 27 witnesses as against the 100 they had said in the pre-hearing report that they would call.

On his part, Obi called in 13 out of the 50 witnesses he had planned on calling and tendered a plethora of documents, including over 18,000 blurred results sheets on which INEC based its declaration of Tinubu as winner.

Obi and his party led evidence by calling witnesses from only a few polling units, wards, local government Areas and local area councils from the disputed states and the FCT.

“Specifically, petitioners called a total of 13 witnesses only in a failed attempt to prove their allegations concerning the 119, 973 Polling Units, 8,809.”

The Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), the first respondent in the petition called a lone witness just as President Tinubu also called only one witness.

The APC, however, said that it found no reason to call any witness, saying that there was no point whipping a dead horse.

Justice Obiora Egwuatu of a Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, affirmed Mr. Ahmed Ododo’s qualification to contest for the All Progressives Congress (APC) primaries in the forthcoming governorship election in Kogi State.

Ododo had emerged winner of the APC primary election of April 14 for the selection of the party’s candidate in the November 11 governorship election in Kogi State.

However, an aspirant of the APC, Mr. Abubakar Achimugu, had approached the Federal High Court, Abuja, asking that Ododo be disqualified from contesting the November 11 governorship election on grounds that he did not resign his employment with the Kogi State public service 30 days before contesting the governorship primary.

The court in its judgement, held that Ododo was able to convince the court he resigned from his appointment more than 30 days before participating in the APC primary.

The court held that exhibits tendered by the defendants showed that while Ododo’s resignation letter was received by the Office of the Kogi State Governor on March 8, that of the 3rd defendant, Mr Salami Deedat, was received on March 9.

The judgement maintained that an employee or appointee’s resignation letter comes into effect the moment the notice is received, held that the employee would not be held responsible if the employer neglected to act on it either by continuing with the payment of salary.

“Satisfied that they resigned their appointment on March 8 and 9, more than 30 days before the April 14 primary…the suit is bereft of any merit and accordingly dismissed.

Earlier, the court dismissed the preliminary objection of the defendants claiming that the suit was statute barred having been filed more than 14 days as required by law.

The judge agreed with the plaintiff that the cause of action actually occurred on April 14, when Ododo and Deedat contested the primary, and not when they purchased the expression of interest and nomination form. “It is one thing to purchase form and it is another thing to participate in an election”, Egwuatu held.

The plaintiff in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/584/2023, claimed that Ododo breached Section 182 of the Constitution, Section 84 of the Electoral Act, 2022, and Article 7 of the APC’s Constitution in participating in the April 14 governorship primary of the APC.

Achimugu argued that Ododo’s failure to resign his appointment with the Kogi State Government, 30 days before the primary, made him ineligible for the November 11, guber poll. 

The APC, Ododo, the deputy governorship candidate, Salami Momodu Deedat, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were 1st, 2nd, 3^rd, and 4th respondents respectively. 

Amongst the issues brought before the court for determination is whether the 2nd defendant is eligible to participate in the forthcoming governorship election slated for November 11, 2023, in view of the fact that both at the time of submitting of nomination and expression of interest forms and the conduct and declaration of primary election results Ododo and Deedat remained civil/ public servants and employees of Kogi State Government, contrary to the provisions of Section 182 (2), Section 84 (10) and (11) of the Electoral Act, 2022 Guidelines for the nomination of candidates.

If the answer is in the affirmative, the plaintiff wants the court to amongst others declare that the 2nd and 3rd defendants are not qualified or eligible to have participated in the primary election being persons both employed in public service of Kogi State, they failed and neglected to resign, withdraw or retire from employment at least 30 days to April 14, 2023, when the primary election was conducted. 

They are also asking the court to declare that the 2nd and 3rd defendants at the time of the concluded primary election of April 14, 2023, and April 15 when results were announced were not qualified or eligible, not validly nominated, and the purported nomination is unconstitutional, not eligible to bear the flag of the APC, as its gubernatorial candidate for Kogi State governorship election slated for November 11, 2023.

Another declaration “That the 2nd defendant is not eligible or qualified to contest for the office of Kogi State Governor, in the November 11, poll, being a person employed in the public service of Kogi State and failed to resign 30 days to the primary election.

Subsequently, they prayed the court to make an order nullifying and setting aside the screening and participation of the second and third defendants in the April 14, gubernatorial primary election for the nomination of the candidate of APC, having been in breach of Section 182 of the Constitution and Section 84 of the Electoral Act, 2022, Article 7 of the APC Constitution. 

Another order disqualifying the 2nd defendant from contesting the office of Kogi State governor on November 11, 2023 

“An order compelling the 4th defendant to remove the name of the 2nd defendant from the list of candidates vying for the governorship seat of Kogi State and substituting same with the name of the plaintiff. 

“An order directing the 1st defendant to recognize and forward name of the plaintiff to the 4th defendant as APC’s valid and authentic gubernatorial candidate for the governorship election in Kogi State. 

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining 2nd defendant from parading himself as gubernatorial candidate of the APC. 

Another order restraining APC and INEC from dealing with Ododo as the governorship candidate of the APC and that in the event Ododo is declared winner of the November 11, 2023 guber election, before the case is fully determined, the certificate of return issued to him by INEC should be withdrawn.

Arguing through his lawyer, Mr Josiah Daniel-Ebune, the plaintiff insisted that Ododo breached Sections 20, 21, 124, 147 of the Constitution and Section 159 of the Evidence Act, when he failed to resign his appointment with the Kogi State Government at the time he purchased the Expression of Interest Form and also stood for the primary election that produced him as candidate.

The aggrieved governorship aspirant urged the Judge to invoke the provisions of the law to disqualify the gubernatorial candidate on the grounds of illegality in the ways and manners he emerged.

The lawyer cited several provisions of the law and Supreme Court judgment in similar matters to determine the status of Ododo at the time he stood for the primary election and asked the Court to grant the request of the plaintiff.

Responding, Ododo asked the Federal High Court to dismiss Achimugu’s suit for lacking in merit.

According to his lawyer, Mr Musa Abdullahi, SAN, contrary to the allegations in the suit, Ododo retired legitimately from the employment of Kogi State as required by law.

Ododo further stated that he broke no law at the time he picked the Expression of Interest Form of his party and at the time he stood for the primary election and won.

According to him, he tendered his resignation on March 8, 2023 through the office of the State Governor and that same was received by the appropriate body the same day.

He drew the attention of the Court to section 306 of the 1999 Constitution adding that whether his resignation was acknowledged, accepted or not, it has started taken effect from the date of submission.

Ododo said that the plaintiff in the suit could not contradict his claim of resignation with any documentary evidence especially with either pay slips or salary payment.

Besides, the APC governorship candidate argued that the plaintiff jumped the gun in the way and manners he instituted the suit adding that the cause of action had not arisen at the time case was filed.

He, therefore, asked the court to rely on his 19 paragraphs affidavit and dismiss the case of the plaintiff for lacking in merit and for being incompetent and baseless.

The position of the gubernatorial candidate was adopted by APC through its counsel Mr. Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN who demanded that the suit be dismissed with substantial cost.

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Friday, reserved judgment in the petition of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) seeking the disqualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from the February 25 presidential election on grounds of unlawful nomination.

The court adjourned indefinitely after parties in the matter adopted their final addresses to prove their case.

The party is before the court praying it to nullify the election of Tinubu on the ground that his Vice Presidential candidate, Kashim Shetima unlawfully allowed himself to be nominated twice for two different constituencies.

Shetima had been nominated by the All Progressives Congress APC as a candidate for Borno Central Senatorial District and was later nominated by the same party as Vice Presidential candidate following the withdrawal of one Kabiru Masari who was the initial Vice Presidential candidate to Tinubu.

Specifically, APM contested that Kashim Shetima and the APC breached the Electoral Act by engaging in the alleged double nomination.

Adopting its final addresses, the party through its counsel, Andrew Malgwu SAN, asked the court to invoke the relevant law to nullify the nomination of Tinubu and Shetima on the ground of unlawful, illegal, and unjustifiable nomination.

However, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) prayed to the Court to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.

In their response, APC, represented by Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, prayed the court to dismiss the petition on all grounds for being frivolous, irritating, and unwarranted.

According to him, the petition was on arrival in view of the Supreme Court judgment that other political parties cannot interfere in the internal affairs of another party, especially on the issue of nomination.

In the same vein, Tinubu and Shetima, who were represented by a legal luminary, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, argued that the APM’S petition ought not to have been filed in the first instance and demanded its outright dismissal.

Olanipekun told the Court that the petition ought to have been withdrawn honourably immediately after the Supreme Court made a pronouncement that no party has the right to dabble into how another party nominated its candidates for elective offices.

Justice Haruna Tsammani then adjourned judgment indefinitely.

*Edeoga’s name missing in LP register

An Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) staff member, Mr Emmanuel Damis, on Tuesday, appeared before the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal as a subpoenaed witness and tendered Mr. Peter Mbah’s qualifications.

Damis, Petitioner’s Witness three, works at the Legal Drafting and Clearance Department, INEC headquarters, Abuja.

The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal is hearing the petition filed by Mr Chijioke Edeoga of the Labour Party against Peter Mbah of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Edeoga is praying the tribunal to disqualify Mba over the alleged NYSC certificate forgery.

When the subpoenaed witness came into the witness box to tender the documents on the evidence, the counsels to the second and third respondents objected to the tendering of documents and refused the counsel to the petitioner, Mr Eyitayo Fatogun to re-examine the witness.

The INEC staff then tendered Mbah’s certificates which he submitted alongside his governorship nomination form.

According to the witness, the documents with me are Form EC9 and all the attachments, for the PDP governorship candidate, Enugu State.

The LP counsel applied to tender the documents as exhibits and were admitted by the tribunal as evidence.

However, the petitioners’ counsel, Fatogun equally cited plethora of cases which he said justified the evidence of the subpoenaed witness

Both the PDP and Mbah objected to the admissibility of the documents. They, however, reserved their objections for the written address.

The two counsels to the respondents, Mbah and the PDP objected to his evidence on the grounds that a witness must first swear to a witness deposition on oath, citing several authorities to back up their argument.

Meanwhile, during cross examination of the witness by the PDP’s counsel, Mr Alex Iziyon (SAN) on membership register of the LP submitted to the commission before the election, Damis could not identify Edeoga’s name as the Isiuzo LGA was not found in the list by the subpoenaed witness.

The witnesses, who said they were all party agents included Ezeme Ifesinachi, Lt.-Col. Chizoba Ugwu (Rtd) from Obollo-Etiti, Joseph Ada and Jonas Okwor, all from from Obollo-Etiti in Udenu Local Government Area.

The witnesses alleged irregularities in the result announced by the INEC for Udenu LGA.

The Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice M.K Akano said that a ruling on the objections raised by the respondents would be considered alongside the judgement.

Akano adjourned the case till July 12 for continuation of the hearing. 

The  All Progressives Congress (APC) on Wednesday in Abuja, closed its case against the election petition of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and the People’s Democratic Party, (PDP) at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) without calling a single witness.

Counsel to the APC, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that there was no need ”Whipping a dead horse” saying the evidence of President Bola Tinubu ‘s sole witness, Sen. Opeyemi Bamide was enough to do damage to the petitioner’s case.

 “Having taken a sober reflection of the entire case, we have enough evidence and we are not calling any witnesses.

”We do not intend to whip a dead horse, we announce the closure of the case of the 3rd respondent, (the APC),” Fagbemi said.

Fagbemi took this position after he cross-examined Bamidele who was Tinubu’s star and only witness. 

Bamidele who is also a lawyer, told the court that the 460,000 dollars forfeiture judgment tendered in evidence by the petitioners was not strong enough to warrant the nullification of Tinubu’s election.

According to the witness, the judgment of the US court on the forfeiture of 460,000 dollars had Tinubu’s name on it but not as a criminal proceeding but as a civil proceeding.

The witness insisted that it was not a criminal forfeiture but a civil one.

Bamidele, who is the Senate Majority Leader held that Tinubu was not charged, arraigned, indicted, or sentenced for any criminal offense by any court in the United States.

”As far as the criminal indictment is concerned, Tinubu has a clean bill of health because he was never indicted and convicted by any court in the United States.”

The witness told the court that he had known President Tinubu for over 35 years adding that in all those years, he knew the president as a bonafide Nigerian citizen by birth.

While answering questions posed by counsel to the petitioners’, Mr Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, the witness said that  Tinubu did not need to score 25 percent of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, (FCT) to be declared winner of the February 25 presidential election.

He also said that the president did not need to win the election in his home state to be declared winner.

The witness insisted that Abuja was simply the federal capital city and had no special status attached to it.

He agreed with the petitioners’ counsel that President Tinubu scored 19.4 percent of the total votes cast in FCT.

The witness who was led in evidence by counsel to Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekin, SAN,  said a  judgment of the Federal High Court,  Abuja, in a suit filed by Labour Party on the mode of collation of election results, held that INEC was at liberty to use any mode of collation it deemed fit.

The witness also told the court that he was licensed to practice at the New York Bar in the United States as well.

With the sole witness, Olanipekun also announced the closure of Tinubu’s defence against the petition filed by the PDP and Atiku.

The closing of the defence by Tinubu and the APC marks the end of one phase and takes the case filed by PDP and Atiku to its next phase which is the exchanging of final written addresses among parties and closing arguments.

The presiding judge of the five-member panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani gave the respondents, INEC, APC, and Tinubu 10 days to file their final written addresses while the petitioners have seven days to respond and the respondents have another five days to reply on points of law.

Justice Tsammani said that the parties would be communicated on the date for the adoption of the final written addresses.

Recall that Atiku came second in the February 25 presidential election, but he is urging the court to overturn Tinubu’s victory on account of electoral fraud and non-compliance with statutory provisions in the conduct of the election.