PEPT: Peter Obi Fails To Substantiate Evidence Of Conviction Against Tinubu On Fraud And Drugs Allegations
Justice Haruna Tsammani led panel on the three petitions challenging the election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Wednesday, held that the presidential candidates of the Labour Party, Mr Peter Obi and his Party, failed to substantiate allegations of fraud and drug allegations levelled against the President.
The court held that Tinubu was qualified to contest the February 25 presidential election.
Amongst grounds upon which Obi and LP are seeking the nullification of Tinubu’s emergence as president is that by a forfeiture order against Tinubu by a United States District Court, Tinubu stands disqualified from participating in the presidential election.
The petitioners had, during the hearing of their petition, claimed that Tinubu was made to forfeit the sum of $460,000 to the US over alleged complicity in drug-related offences.
But delivering judgment on Wednesday, the five-member panel stated that the petitioners failed to prove that Tinubu was found guilty of any offence involving any act of dishonesty, adding that evidence before the court showed that the forfeiture order against Tinubu was in a civil and not criminal matter.
Justice Tsammani agreed with the respondents that Tinubu was neither arraigned nor convicted in the US over any alleged crime to warrant disqualification.
Besides, the court pointed out that documents tendered by the respondents confirmed that Tinubu was given a clean bill of health upon an enquiry from Nigeria.
Further faulting the case of the petitioners, the court held that Section 269(1&2), provides that such documents must be given under the hand Police officer and accompanied with a certificate showing that the police officer has powers to sign such documents.
Also the court pointed that even if Tinubu were convicted for the alleged offence, for him to be disqualified from the 2023 election, the purported conviction must take place within 10 years of the election.
Meanwhile, the court has also dismissed claim by Obi and LP that the election that produced Tinubu did not comply with the Electoral Act, 2022, because the results of the election were not transmitted in real-time to the INEC’s Results Viewing (IReV) portals.
According to the judgment, nowhere in the Electoral Act says election must be electronically transmitted for collation.
While pointing out that Sections 14 and 18 of the Electoral Act provide for the use of the Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) for the accreditation of voters, Justice Tsammani emphasized that electronic transmission of results is not expressly stated in the Electoral Act, but was only mentioned by INEC in its guidelines for the conduct of the election.