By Okoi Obono-Obla
IT is settled that the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) delivered judgment on the consolidated petitions filed by Peter Obi, the Labour Party; Atiku Abubakar, and the People’s Democratic Party against the declaration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the winner of the 25 February 2023 presidential election.
The PEPT, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the consolidated petitions and held that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu won the election squarely and fairly and accordingly declared him to be validly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Both Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar have rejected the consolidated judgments and have indeed applied to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
In this essay, I will attempt to give an insight into the likelihood of an appeal against the consolidated judgment succeeding given the position of the law vis-a-vis the findings made by the Tribunal based on its evaluation and appraisal of oral and documentary evidence rendered by both parties and admitted before it.
I think an appeal against the consolidated judgment is an exercise in futility and blustery; in as much as I concede to the right of the parties to fight at the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
What are the findings of facts made by the Tribunal?
Before I delve into that question, I will attempt to explain to the readers what a finding is.
A finding of fact, also known as a conclusion of fact, refers to decisions made by the trial court on questions of fact in a case.
Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts are.
Some of the findings made by the PEPT in its judgment include:
- The petitioners failed to prove allegations of corrupt practices;
- The petitioners failed to specify the polling units where they alleged that rigging took place;
- The petitioners failed to provide any credible evidence to prove their allegations of suppression of votes in their strongholds;
- The electoral commission was not bound to transmit results electronically;
- Failure to upload the photographic copies of polling unit results in real-time did not invalidate the election;
- That Tinubu was eminently qualified to contest the 25 February presidential election;
- Tinubu was neither arraigned nor convicted in the US over any alleged crime to warrant his disqualification;
- Documents tendered by the respondents confirmed that Tinubu was given a clean bill of health upon an inquiry from Nigeria;
- 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;
- The forfeiture order was made nearly three decades ago;
- There is nowhere in the Electoral Act that says election must be electronically transmitted for collation;
- Sections 14 & 18 of the Electoral Act provide for the use of the Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) for the accreditation of voters, however, the “IReV is not a collation system”.
In addition, the tribunal pointed out that amongst the total of over 18, 000 polling units where the petitioners alleged that INEC uploaded “blurred results ” to the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) portals, not one polling unit was cited.
“They did not specify polling units where election results were not uploaded” or where scores attributed to them were reduced or added to Tinubu”.
“They did not show the majority of votes they claimed they had scored “, the tribunal held, adding that petitioners only make generic allegations of irregularities and malpractice.
The petitioners were wrong for relying on a spreadsheet analysis, inspection results, and expert reports. Such documents ought to be served on the respondents to enable them to do their analysis and respond accordingly.
“The spreadsheet report, inspection results, and experts reports were not served but only listed as documents to be relied on in adjudicating the petition”.
The tribunal also found that the nomination of the vice presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress was valid and proper.
These are some of the findings of facts made by the PEPT against the Petitioners.
The grounds of appeal that would emanate from the judgment appealed against would have to flow from these findings adumbrated.
These findings are not exhaustive but for this essay, I decided to reproduce just but a few of them.
It is settled that the Supreme Court is a court of review in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
The law is settled that the Supreme Court will not disturb findings of facts made by lower courts unless the appellant can fulfill the following pre-condition:
Establish a substantial error apparent on the face of the record of proceedings; show that such findings of facts were perverse; the said findings were unsupported by the evidence before the trial court; that the findings and conclusion were arrived at as a result of a wrong approach to the evidence or wrong application of the principles of substantive law or procedure.
I do think that the findings of facts made by the Tribunal are perverse or that they are not supported by evidence or that they were arrived at based on a wrong approach to the evidence or wrong application of the principles of substantive law or procedure.
The issue of the inappropriate nomination of the Vice President has already been settled in a previous case by the Supreme Court.
In the case of PDP vs. Tinubu and others, the Supreme Court had held that the PDP lacked the legal right to file a suit on an internal affair of APC on the premise that no political party can challenge the nomination of another political party.
Therefore, in conclusion, any appeal against the judgment of the PEPT will be nothing but blustery.
- Okoi Obono-Obla is the Principal Counsel Obono, Obono & Associates Nigeria
Eighteen-Eleven Media