The candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), in the last presidential election, Abubakar Atiku, has asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to uphold the admittance of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that he won 21 States in the disputed February 25 presidential election.
Three of the lawyers representing INEC at the PEPC told THISDAY last night that Atiku’s claim will be addressed in its ‘response on point of law’ to the Court next week. However, the lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, all refused to speak on whether the PDP candidate’s “21 states victory” is contained in INEC’s written response to Atiku’s petition submitted to the Tribunal.
Atiku, predicated his demand on the grounds that the electoral umpire had in its reply to his petition challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu as President, stated that he won in 21 of the 36 states of the federation, adding that INEC did not dispute that during the hearing nor in its final written address against the petition.
The former vice president, made the request in his final written address filed on July 20, by their lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche SAN, in support of his joint petition with the PDP seeking the nullification of Tinubu’s victory at the presidential poll.
The petitioners maintained that INEC’s assertion that he won in 21 States was neither disputed, retracted, debunked, nor claimed to be an error throughout the proceedings.
INEC, according to Atiku, had in its reply in April, asserted that he “won in 21 States of the federation in the last presidential poll, but only 12 States were announced for the PDP during the declaration of results on March 1, this year.”
According to Atiku, States the electoral umpire said were won by him are Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Borno, Delta, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.”
The former vice president said the PEPC should proceed to uphold the declaration, since INEC on its own averments claimed that he won 21 states and did not deny the assertion throughout the proceedings.
Atiku in the final written address said: “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:
- ‘Banky W’ Of PDP Loses Etiosa Reps Seat To LP Candidate
The Labour Party candidate, Thaddeus Attah, has defeated Olubankole ‘Banky…Read More “‘Banky W’ Of PDP Loses Etiosa Reps Seat To LP Candidate” »
- ‘Cook-Olododo Is An Attention Seeker, Rabble Rouser’ – Saraki’s Media Aide
Abdulganiyu Abdulqadir, the media aide to former President of the…Read More “‘Cook-Olododo Is An Attention Seeker, Rabble Rouser’ – Saraki’s Media Aide” »
“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, Bayelsa, 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 1st 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 PDP which held on 25th February 2023, along with 17 other candidates, including the 2nd Respondent, who was the candidate of the ruling party, the APC, in whose favour the electoral body, 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 March 1, 2023, at a time the 1st Respondent admitted that substantial percentage of the results had not been transmitted to the collation system for verification as required by law.
“Under the cover of the so-called ‘technical glitch’ excuse which the 1st 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 petitioners also noted that INEC equally proceeded to declare Tinubu winner when he did not meet the mandatory constitutional requirement to secure not less than a quarter of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.
They stated: “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 not 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.”
The PREPEC, however, is yet to fix a date for the adoption of parties’ final written address in the Atiku and PDP’s petition.
INEC’s Chairman Professor Yakubu Mahmood had on March 1, declared Tinubu winner of the February 25 presidential election on the grounds that Tinubu of the APC scored majority of the lawful votes cast at the presidential poll.
But Atiku and the PDP disagreed with INEC, alleging that the electoral umpire, besides failing to abide by its own regulations and guidelines on the conduct of the 2023 general elections, rigged the process to favour Tinubu and the APC.
They are therefore asking the court to void Tinubu’s election, declare them winner or in the alternative conduct a fresh election that would exclude Tinubu.
[ThisDay]
