LP, PDP reject tribunal judgement affirming Tinubu’s victory at February 25 poll

• Tinubu, Obi & Atiku 

• Verdict not reflection of people’s desires – LP

• Judgment is against reason – PDP 

• LP’s factional chairman, Apapa, hails judgment

National reports

The Labour Party (LP) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have rejected the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) affirming President Bola Ahmed Tinubu victory at the February 25 poll.

On Wednesday, the tribunal struck out the various charges filed by Obi and the LP challenging Tinubu’s victory.

The PDP decision was conveyed in a statement issued late in the night and signed by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba.

Obiora Ifoh, national publicity secretary of the LP, said in a statement that justice was not served in the judgement, adding that it did not reflect the law and desires of the people.

“The Labour Party watched with dismay and trepidation the dismissal of petitions by the five-man panel of the Presidential Election Petition Court led by Justice Haruna Tsammani today and we reject the outcome of the judgment in its entirety because justice was not served and it did not reflect the law and the desire of the people,” the statement reads.

“Nigerians were witnesses to the electoral robbery that took place on February 25, 2023, which was globally condemned but the Tribunal in its wisdom refused to accept the obvious.

“What is at stake is democracy and we will not relent until the people’s will prevail.

“We salute the doggedness of our team of lawyers who fearlessly exposed the wrath in our system. We can only weep for democracy in Nigeria but we refuse to give up on Nigeria.

“Details of the party’s position will be presented after consultation with our lawyers after the Certified True Copy of the judgement is made available to us.”

The Labour Party urged all lovers of democracy to remain focused and hopeful, adding that a new Nigeria is possible.

Obi who came third in the election and his party had filed a joint petition in March challenging the outcome of the presidential poll.

The statement from the PDP reads: “Few moments ago, the PEPC delivered judgment in the petition filed by our party, the PDP and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu over the declaration of the APC and Senator Tinubu as winner of the February 25, 2023 presidential election by INEC.

“As a party, we have had an initial review of the judgment as delivered by the PEPC and we unequivocally reject the judgement in its entirety.

“The judgment is against reason, against the facts and evidence presented in court; against the relevant electoral laws, guidelines and regulations as well as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“Indeed, the judgment is generous in technicalities and very short in delivering substantial justice in the matter. The PDP, as a law-abiding political party, will with our lawyers, have a comprehensive review of the judgment and decide on the next line of action within the ambit of the law.”

In their final written address dated July 20, the petitioners insisted that Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima were not qualified to contest the poll.

The petitioners had argued that Tinubu was not eligible to contest the election due to the forfeiture of $460,000 in the US and his failure to secure 25 percent of votes cast in the federal capital territory (FCT).

FCT not superior to any state

But the tribunal in its judgement said the FCT is not treated specially in the election as it is not superior to any state.

The tribunal said the interpretation of the 25 percent votes cast in the FCT by the LP is “fallacious”.

“With due respect to counsel to the petitioners, their interpretation of the provision of the constitution, as regards the 25 percent in Abuja, is fallacious if not completely ludicrous,” the court said.

The court held that there is equality of rights irrespective of which part of the country voters prefer to live in.

The tribunal also ruled that the LP failed to prove that Tinubu should have been disqualified from contesting the election on account of a forfeiture agreement.

In 1993, Tinubu surrendered $460,000 to the US government after a Chicago court found that the money was the proceeds of heroin trafficking.

The forfeiture deal was one of the prayers against Tinubu by the LP, Obi and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

While reading the lead judgment, Haruna Tsammani, chairman of the tribunal, said the evidence (Exhibit P5) tendered by the petitioners showed that it was a civil forfeiture case.

Tsammani held that the petitioners failed to adduce credible evidence to show that Tinubu was arraigned or took a plea or was sentenced or fined in any criminal suit in the US.

Apapa hails judgment

But LP’s factional National Chairman Lamidi Apapa disagreed with party’s position. He hailed the verdict and said that the party’s candidate, Mr. Peter Obi had been on wild goose chase.

The Apapa-led faction said: “As a law abiding party, we accept the verdict, and we are going back to the drawing board to know where we have gone wrong.”

The faction said it warned Obi not to pursue any case, stressing that the presidential candidate was “chasing a wild goose.”

In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Abayomi Arabambi, the faction said: “It is a shame that the legal team of Mr Peter Obi failed to advise him properly before going to the tribunal.

“Peter Obi has just gone on a wild goose chase. Imagine the candidate failed to fund the party in order to engage the number of required polling agents. Also, the filing of the witnesses outside the stipulated time has shown that the legal team is a failure.

“Some of us have been saying that Peter Obi decided to go to the tribunal to justify all the money he collected during the campaign.

“It’s unfortunate that Obi failed to convince the tribunal about those polling units where he was rigged out. The tribunal also said that he ‘made generic allegations of irregularities against the respondent without specifying the polling units.

“The petitioners alleged irregularities and will use spreadsheets, inspection reports, and forensic analysis as evidence in the trial. The documents promised by the petitioners were not attached to the petition and served on the respondents.”