The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, on Tuesday, gave reasons why it did not declare the candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar, as the winner of the presidential election that held on February 25.
The electoral body, in processes it filed before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, maintained that Atiku failed to score at least one-quarter of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 States of the federation and as such was not declared winner.
It, therefore, prayed the court to strike out the petition that Atiku and his party, PDP, filed to challenge the declaration of Bola Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, as winner of the presidential contest.
INEC, in the preliminary objection it filed through its team of lawyers led by Mr. A. B. Mahmoud, SAN, described Atiku’s petition as grossly incompetent, saying it was an abuse of the court process.
It termed the petition as “vague and academic”, insisting that it was anchored on “non existent, imprecise. and unclear averments”.
INEC told the court that though Atiku alleged that the presidential election was rigged in Tinubu’s favour, he, however, failed to give specifics about how the said manipulation took place.
For instance, the electoral body noted that whereas Atiku, in the petition he jointly filed with the PDP, alleged that its presiding officers failed to properly fill and countersign alterations in some of the election forms in over 40, 000 polling units, he did not provide details of the purportedly affected polling units to enable the Respondents to adequately respond to the allegation.
“In paragraph 143 of the Petition, the Petitioners further alleged that the 1st Respondent and its agents wrongly and deliberately entered wrong scores/results in twenty-two States.
“No detail, facts or pleadings were specifically provided on the purported wrong scores/results in the particular polling units or wards in those 22 states to enable the 1st Respondent to adequately respond to these allegations,” INEC added.
Besides, it told the court that necessary parties or persons who are likely to be affected by allegations that were raised by Atiku, were not made parties to the petition.
Insisting that petitioners are seeking “un-grantable reliefs”, the electoral body noted that though Atiku and PDP are contending that the entire results of the Presidential Election as declared, inclusive of their own results are wrong, they failed to provide which results they perceived to be the correct results in the election and “yet, they sought to be declared winners of the Presidential Election held on the 25th day of February”.
“The Petitioners in paragraph 126 of the Petition stated that there were manifest cases of over-voting in polling units in various States but did not provide the polling units where the alleged over-voting occurred to enable the 1st Respondent adequately respond to these assertions.
“In paragraph 140 of the Petition, the Petitioners alleged over-voting in the 23 Local Government Areas in Rivers State without specifically stating or providing the details of the over-voting and the particulars of the polling units allegedly affected in the State to enable the 1st Respondent adequately respond to these assertions.
“The Petitioners alleged that in the results from 19,702 polling units across the 36 states and the FCT, there were various forms of infractions, without specifically stating the particular polling units results and the nature of the purported infractions.
“The Petitioners alleged that 4, 307 polling units did not have stamp on their respective Form EC8A, without specifically stating the particular polling units allegedly affected.
“In paragraph 118 of the Petition, the Petitioners vaguely alleged that 9,463 polling units across 30 States show that votes returned were in excess of accredited voters. The details of these polling units and the specific details of the alleged over-voting were not stated in the body of the petition.
“By paragraphs 137 and 142 of the Petition, the Petitioners seek to void the entire results in Lagos and Kano States where the Labour Party and New Nigerian Peoples Party scored the majority of lawful votes cast without making them parties to this Petition
“Also in paragraph 138 of the Petition, the Petitioners seek to have the entire results in Rivers State voided inclusive of the votes of Labour Party which represents over 25% of the valid votes cast at the election without making Labour Party a Respondent to this Petition.
“The Petitioners made allegations of criminal acts against Hon. Friday Adejoh and Governor Yahaya Bello in paragraph 129 and 133 of the Petition when these persons were not joined as parties to the Petition.
“The allegations contained in the Petition are grossly and unpardonably incompetent, vague, speculative, ambiguous and academic”, INEC added.
It told the court that the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, with Tinubu emerging winner with the highest number of lawful votes cast.
“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 number of States to wit: Adamawa, Akwa lbom. Bauchi. 83) else. Bomo, Delta. Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwam. Nasarawa, Niger, Osun, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.
“The 1st Respondent avers that the Petitioners who on the one hand, alleged various irregularities and non-compliance in the conduct of the election conveniently accepted the validity of their scores as declared by the 1st Respondent, upon which they have prayed that the 1st Petitioner be returned the winner of the election and sworn in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, having purportedly scored the majority of votes cast”.
INEC told the court that despite technical glitches experienced on election day with regards to upload of polling unit election results of the Presidential election, it said that it kept its promise to Nigerians “in conducting free, fair, transparent and credible elections by deploying the BVAS device in conducting accreditation of voter’s electronically and uploading of scanned copies of polling unit election results to the chv portal”.
“The Presidential election was devoid of any form of manipulation or favoritism on the part of the 1st Respondent.
“Further, the 1st Respondent states that the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) was rightly returned as winner having scored the highest number of the lawful votes cast at the election which results were collated manually in the presence of party agents including the Petitioners’.
“The 1st Respondent states that uploading of election results to the lReV portal is NOT a condition precedent to the declaration of the winner of an election under the Electoral Act.
“The Act does not require the 1st Respondent to transmit results to the IRev portal before determining or declaring the winner of the Presidential election.
“The 1st Respondent states further that it had all the physical hard copies of the results sheets from which it collated and tabulated the scores of the candidates. It states further that the result sheets were uploaded via its e -transmission system to the IRev portal.
“In further answer to paragraph 21 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent states that the BVAS device was, despite the glitches experienced on the day of the Presidential election, still a game changer.
“It was properly deployed and used to verify and accredit registered voters. It was also used to upload scanned copies of polling unit results through the e- transmission system to the IRev portal in the Presidential election held on 25th February 2023.
“The 1st Respondent further states that the BVAS device was not designed to and did not transmit election results to the phantom Electmnic Coliation System as alleged by the Petitioners.
“The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 22 of the Petition only to the extent that it had prescribed the accreditation and verification of voters and the uploading of scanned copies of polling unit results on the IRev portal using the BVAS device.
“The 1st Respondent denies that it prescribed or established a system to electronically transfer or transmit the results and the accreditation data from polling units to an electronic collation system.
“In further answer to paragraph 22 (2), the 1st Respondent states that though the Regulation authorized its presiding officers to either electronically transmit or transfer the results of the polling units ‘direct to the collation system as prescribed by the Commission’, indeed no such Electronic Collation System was prescribed by the 1st Respondent.
“The mode of collation prescribed by the 1st Respondent was the physical conveyance of the results sheets to the collation centers and the subsequent manual collation.
“The 1st Respondent shall contend at the trial of this Petition that the uploading of polling unit results sheets using the BVAS device was by its Regulation and Guidelines to take place at the close of polls and alter announcement of results at the polling units by the Presiding Officers.
“It could also be done at the RA/Ward Collation Centre by the Ward Collation”.
READ ALSO:
INEC equally denied Atiku’s allegation that it installed an intervening third-party device that was used to intercept the results of the election and divert them to Tinubu.
“The 1st Respondent‘s Mobile Device Management System (iMDMS) has no relationship whatsoever with the Result Transmission System. It did not and was never used to intercept, quarantine, and warehouse polling unit results uploaded on the System and or to manipulate same.
“The glitch experienced by the 1st Respondent had nothing to do with the iMDMS system, neither was it because the 1st Respondent wanted to quarantine or warehouse any result whatsoever.
“The 1st Respondent in answer to paragraph 23 of the Petition states that no vote was wrongly allocated to the 2nd Respondent and indeed no allocation of vote to any of the candidates who participated in the election took place.
“The votes scored by the 2nd Respondent at the election were lawful and valid. The 1“ Respondent denies that it deliberately or negligently deducted votes from the 1st Petitioner’s scores to facilitate the return of the 2nd Respondent or any other candidate”.
The l” Respondent states that having scored at least one-quarter of the valid votes cast in 29 States which is over and above the 24 2’3 States threshold required by the Constitution in addition to scoring the highest number of the lawful votes cast at the election. the 2″4 Respondent was properly declared winner and returned as the President-elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The 2“ Respondent. having scored 25% of the valid votes cast in the 29 States listed above has satisfied the requirement of the Constitution to be declared winner of the Presidential election thus rendering the requitcment of having 25% of the valid votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory unnecessary. The 1“ Respondent pleads and shall at the trial of this Petition rely on the particulars of the votes contained in all the Electoral forms including but not limited to forms E(‘SA. ECBB. EC8C. [zCSD and. ECSE used in the conduct of the Presidential Election held on the 25″ day of February 2023.
Federal atitaITerrito Rewarded as late.
In specific answer to paragraph 76 of the Petition. the l” Respondent states that the provisions of the Constitution apply to the Federal Capital Territory (PCT) as if it were one of the States of the Federation and the use of the word “AND“ in section l34 (2) of the Constitution indicates nothing mone than that in construing two-thirds of the States of the Federation in which a candidate is required to score one-quarter of the votes cast. the Federal
INEC told the court that it declared Tinubu as winner of the election, considering that he “scored highest valid votes cast at the election and at least 25% of the votes cast in not less than two-thirds of the States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
“The 1st Respondent pleads and shall at the trial of this suit rely on all the Electoral Forms including but not limtted to Forms ECSA, BCSB, ECSC, ECSD and ECBE used in the course of the Presidential Election held on the 25th day of February 2023”.
On the issue of Tinubu not winning the FCT, INEC, argued that going by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, “the FCT has the status of a State and ought to be recognized as one of the States of the Federation”
“The 1st Respondent further states that the FCT, beyond being the Capital of Nigeria, has no special status over and above the other 36 States of the Federation to require a candidate in the Presidential Election to obtain at least 25% of the votes cast in the FCT before being declared winner of the Presidential Election.
“The 1st Respondent shall also contend at the trial of this suit that the FCT is regarded as the thirty-seventh (37th) State of the Federation and as such, a candidate needs to score 25% of the valid votes cast in at least two-thirds of 37 States to be declared as winner in the Presidential Election.
“The 1st Respondent avers that the 2nd Respondent scored 25% of the valid in 29 States of the Federation as stated above”, INEC added.
It therefore prayed the court to dismiss the petition and affirm Tinubu as the valid winner of the presidential election.
