Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The presidential election petition court has struck out some paragraphs containing allegations of irregularities and corrupt practices by the presidential candidate of Labour Party (LP), Mr Peter Obi, in his petition challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu as winner of the February 25 presidential election.
Justice Haruna Tsammanni five-member panel struck out the affected paragraphs on the grounds that they were generic, “vague, imprecise, nebulous and failed to meet the requirements of pleadings”.
In his ruling in the preliminary objections filed by INEC, Tinubu and APC, Justice Abba Mohammed, held that “averments” must not leave room for confusion or ambiguity, adding that the aim of pleadings is to avail respondents of the facts of the case so as to prepare adequately.
According to the ruling in a case of alleged malpractices in over 500 polling units, it does not suffice for the petitioners to say some polling units or collation centers without being specific.
“Averments must not be general but specific”, Mohammed held that, “petitioners failed to specify polling units where anomalies occurred or where agents complained of alleged malpractices and irregularities.
In addition the tribunal pointed that amongst the total of over 18, 000 polling units where the petitioners alleged that INEC uploaded “blurred results ” unto the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) Portals, not one polling units was cited.
“They did not specify polling units where election results were not uploaded” or where scores attributed to them was reduced or added to Tinubu”.
“They did not show the majority of votes they claimed they had scored “, the tribunal held, adding that petitioners only make generic allegations of irregularities and malpractices.
Mohammed further faulted the petitioners for relying on a spreadsheet analysis, inspection results and experts reports.
According to Mohammed such documents ought to be served on the respondents to enable them do their own analysis and respond accordingly.
“The spreadsheet report, inspection results and experts reports were not served but only listed as documents to be relied on in adjudicating the petition”, the court held.
It is unimaginable that a petitioner will allege widespread rigging in 176,000 Polling units, over 8,000 wards, 774 LGAs, 36 States and FCT without stating the specific place where the alleged irregularities occur – Court
It subsequently went ahead to strike out the affected paragraphs as requested by the petitioners.
Meanwhile, the court declined to dismiss the petition on grounds that Obi and LP failed to join Atiku Abubakar of the PDP, who came second in the February 25 presidential election.
The tribunal held that in an election petition case, the petitioners’ case is between the winner and the electoral body that contested the election.
The tribunal however, has delved into the merit of Obi’s Petition.
On Obi’s membership of LP which was being contested by the respondents citing that Obi was still a PDP member
Court has said Obi and LP certified the provisions of Obi being a member
The ground of rejection of Obi as a member of LP is overruled.
The PEPT is basically striking off the forensic report or evidence provided by the mathematics professor who carried out the analysis because according to the PEPT, his evidence should have been provided at the point of filing the election petition so that the opposition can read them ahead of time.
In another ruling, the Chairman of the panel, Justice Tsammani dismissed the evidence of 10 out of the 13 witnesses on the grounds that their statements on oath were not frontloaded alongside the petition contrary to sections 85 (5); 137 of the Electoral Act; and paragraph 4 (5) (6) and 14 (2), governing the filing of election petition.
The court held that every witness statement of oath filed outside the 21 days period provided by law is deemed incompetent.
“This is irrespective of whether the witness are ordinary, experts or subpoenaed witneses. Once the 21 days elapsed, such witness statements becomes incompetent, as allowing those statements would amount to overreaching the respondents.
Justice Tsammani held that rules of court cannot whittle down the express provisions of the Constitution.
“Deposition of witnesses must be file alongside the petition as any written deposition not frontloaded along with the petition their statements are incompetent.”
In addition, it was the findings of the court that most of the witnesses who testified for the petitioners are those with vested interest in the outcome of the case and therefore incompetent by the provision if section 91(3) of the Evidence Act.
Consequently the court declared all the exhibits tendered by the 10 witnesses as incompetent.
The court held that section 91 (3) of the Evidence Act prohibits the admissibility of documents produced by witnesses with vested interest in a case.
It defined an interested persons to mean a person affected by the outcome of an action and who has a temptation to perverse the truth.
