Presidential tribunal says Peter Obi’s petition lacks merit, rigging evidence

The court had earlier struck out the testimonies of 10 of 13 witnesses Peter Obi and the Labour Party had presented to buttress their arguments.

ADEFEMOLA AKINTADE • September 6, 2023

Peter Obi and Bola Tinubu

The Presidential Elections Petitions Court has adjudged Peter Obi’s petitions seeking an annulment of President Bola Tinubu’s election victory clearly unmeritorious.

Mr Obi of the Labour Party had alleged overvoting, voter suppression and corruption in the February 25 polls, hence, prayed the court to nullify Mr Tinubu as the election that pronounced him winner was deeply flawed.

But Justice Tsammani on Wednesday said Mr Obi of the Labour Party “failed to establish the allegations of corrupt practices and overvoting. The consequence, issue 3 is resolved against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.”

The court had earlier struck out the testimonies of 10 of 13 witnesses Peter Obi and the Labour Party had presented to buttress their arguments.

“The petitioner made the allegation of non-compliance a substantial part of their case. By the provisions of Section 135(2) of the Electoral Act, they are required to show how such noncompliance substantially affected them. If they fail to show the same, the petition fails,” the Court ruled.

On the contentious 25 per cent of votes in the FCT, Mr Tsammani held that the FCT was neither superior nor inferior to other states in the nation, stating it was hollow and futile to think that “the voters in the FCT have more weight than others in other parts of the country to the extent that their votes purportedly have a greater effect on other votes.”

The jurist ruled that Mr Obi did not prove that Mr Tinubu had been indicted or convicted by the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, and that the president’s forfeiture of $460,000 in drug money to the United States was only a civil forfeiture with no criminal consequences.

“A civil forfeiture is a unique remedy which rests on the legal fixture that the property, not the owner, is the target, therefore, it does not require conviction or even a criminal charge against the owner as it is not a punishment for criminal purposes.”

“The petitioners have failed to show evidence that the second respondent was indicted, charged or arraigned tried, and convicted and was sentenced to any term of imprisonment or fine for any particular offence,” the Court held.

We have recently deactivated our website's comment provider in favour of other channels of distribution and commentary. We encourage you to join the conversation on our stories via our Facebook, Twitter and other social media pages.