- Argues LP failed to submit Obi’s name to INEC 30 days before primaries
- Asks Tribunal to dismiss ‘frivolous’ petition
The All Progressives Congress has asked the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to dismiss the petition filed by the Labour Party and its candidate, Peter Obi, on the legal grounds that, having not been a member of the Labour Party at the time of his alleged sponsorship, he lacked the requisite locus standi to challenge the victory of the President-elect, Bola Tinubu.
The APC likewise faulted the petition by Obi and his political party on the ground that the failure to join the presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party, Atiku Abubakar as a co-responded, has rendered the petition legally incompetent.
The APC argued that Obi was not a member of the Labour Party at least 30 days before its presidential primary to be validly sponsored by the party.
The position of the APC is contained in its notice of preliminary objection filed against the petition by the Labour Party and its candidate.
Obi and the Labour Party had filed a petition at the tribunal against the return of Bola Tinubu and Kashim Shettima by the Independent National Electoral Commission as winners of the February 25 presidential election.
The electoral body had announced that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar of the PDP came second with 6,984,520 votes in the election; Obi came third with 6,101,533 votes.
However, in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023, the Labour Party and Obi are among other prayers, seeking the nullification of the election victory of Tinubu and Shettima in the presidential poll.
Obi and LP’s lead counsel, Livy Ozoukwu, SAN, contended that Tinubu “was not duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election.”
The petitioners claimed there was rigging in 11 states, adding that they would demonstrate this in the declaration of results based on the uploaded results.
They said INEC violated its own regulations when it announced the result despite the fact that at the time of the announcement, the totality of the polling unit results had yet to be fully scanned, uploaded and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.
Among other prayers, the petitioners urged the tribunal to “determine that, at the time of the presidential election held on February 25,, 2023, the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) were not qualified to contest the election.
“That it be determined that all the votes recorded for the 2nd respondent in the election are wasted votes, owing to the non-qualification of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
“That it be determined that on the basis of the remaining votes (after discountenancing the votes credited to the 2nd respondent) the 1st petitioner (Obi) scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25 per cent of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the states of the federation and the FCT and satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the February 25 presidential election.
“That it be determined that the 2nd respondent (Tinubu), having failed to score one-quarter of the votes cast at the presidential election in the FCT was not entitled to be declared and returned as the winner of the presidential election held on February 25.”
But responding to the petition, the APC in its notice of preliminary objection urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the ground that Obi, (the 1st petitioner), lacked requisite locus standi to institute the petition because he was not a member of LP at least 30 days to the party’s presidential primary to be validly sponsored by the party.
The ruling party said: “The 1st petitioner (Obi) was a member of PDP until May 24, 2022. The 1st petitioner was screened as a presidential aspirant of the PDP in April 2022.
“1st petitioner participated and was cleared to contest the presidential election while being a member of the PDP.
“1st petitioner purportedly resigned his membership of PDP on May 24, 2022, to purportedly join the 2nd petitioner (Labour Party) on May 27, 2022.
“2nd petitioner conducted its presidential primary on May 30, 2022, which purportedly produced 1st petitioner as its candidate, which time contravened Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act for him to contest the primary election as a member of the 2nd petitioner.”
The party argued that Obi was not a member of LP at the time of his alleged sponsorship.
Arguing on this point, the party stressed that: “by the mandatory provisions of Section 77 (1) (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022, a political party shall maintain a register and shall make such register available to INEC not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses and convention.”
It stated further that all the PDP’s presidential candidates were screened on April 29, 2022, an exercise in which Obi participated and was cleared to contest while being a member of the party.
It argued that the petition was incompetent since Obi’s name could not have been in LP’s register made available to INEC as at the time he joined the party.
The party further contended that the petition was improperly constituted having failed to join Atiku Abubakar and PDP who were necessary parties to be affected by the reliefs sought
“By Paragraph 17 of the petition, the petitioners, on their own, stated that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar came second in the presidential election with 6,984,520 votes as against the petitioners who came third with 6,101,533 votes;
“At Paragraph 102 (iti) of the petition, the petitioners urged the tribunal to determine that the 1st petitioner scored the majority of lawful votes without joining Alhaji Atiku Abubakar in the petition.
“For the tribunal to grant prayer (iii) of the petitioners, the tribunal must have set aside the scores and election of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.
“Alhaji Atiku Abubakar must be heard before his votes can be discountenanced by the tribunal,” it said.
The party said the petition and the identified paragraphs were in breach of the mandatory provisions of Paragraph 4(1)(D) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.
According to APC, Paragraphs 60 — 77 of the petition are non-specific, vague and/or nebulous and thereby incompetent contrary to Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the Ist Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022; It said that the allegations of non-compliance must be made distinctly and proved on a polling unit basis but none was specified or provided in any of the paragraphs of the petition.
“Paragraphs 59-60 of the petition disclose no identity or particulars of scores and polling units supplied in 18,088 units mentioned therein,” it added.
The party, therefore, argued that the tribunal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain pre-election complaints embedded in the petition as presently constituted, among other arguments.
The APC urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial cost as the same was devoid of any merit and founded on frivolity.
