Five Major Verdicts by Tribunal on Atiku, Peter Obi’s Petitions and Their Implications
For over 24 weeks, since Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar filed a petition in March 2023, against the declaration of Bola Tinubu as Nigeria’s 16th President, the Presidential Election Tribunal has dominated public discussion and generated much buzz that was similar to the general elections.
However, on Wednesday, September 6, 2023, the highly anticipated and closely watched legal battle was given a verdict by a five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, in a 12-hour marathon judgment, during which the Justices affirmed Bola Tinubu as Nigeria’s duly elected President.
Notwithstanding the ruling, which was delivered around 9:15 PM WAT, the political climate of the country is yet to be defused as supporters of the opposition parties reject the ruling.
While the petitioners filed several accusations against Tinubu and the electoral body, the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC), Neusroom takes a look at five major rulings as declared by the court.
1) No Special Privileges for Abuja in Presidential Election
One of the central issues in the case was the requirement for a presidential candidate to secure at least 25% of the total votes cast in the nation’s capital city, Abuja, for their election to be valid.
This dispute, which has been a major contention and one of Peter Obi’s vital cases, has dominated public discussion and divided legal opinions.
In the official result as declared by INEC, Peter Obi secured 59% of the total votes cast in Nigeria’s capital city, leaving President Bola Tinubu with 19%, and Atiku with 15%.
However, the Tribunal’s ruling clarified that Abuja should not be accorded any special privileges beyond what the constitution prescribes for all states in the federation.
Unless otherwise overturned by the Supreme Court, this decision establishes a uniform standard for all states, eliminating any potential advantage or disadvantage associated with Abuja.
2) Lack of Concrete Evidence on Electoral Irregularities
The petitioners, Peter Obi and Atiku, alleged widespread electoral irregularities and malpractices during the election, in their final address to the Tribunal.
Recall that Neusroom reported that Obi claimed to have substantial evidence showing that he won Rivers State, and Benue State, which was otherwise called in favour of Tinubu.
However, the Tribunal ruled that the petitioners did not provide concrete evidence pinpointing the specific polling units where these alleged irregularities occurred.
While this ruling is expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court if the petitioners choose to file an appeal, it underscores the importance of presenting clear and verifiable evidence in election-related cases.
3) Dismissal of Atiku’s Dual Citizenship Case
Atiku Abubakar’s legal team raised a dual citizenship issue against President Bola Tinubu. Atiku and his legal team alleged that President Bola Tinubu holds dual citizenship with Guinea but failed to indicate so in his nomination form.
However, in the ruling, the five-man panel held that the information presented in Atiku’s reply was an attempt to introduce fresh evidence to compensate for the details that his legal team failed to provide when initially filing the petition.
Additionally, the court found Atiku’s claim of non-qualification, as stated in the main petition, to be vague. The panel noted that the dual citizenship issue was introduced in the response to the respondents’ reply, indicating that it was not adequately addressed in the original petition.
However, many claim that the court failed to adequately rule on whether lying under oath or withholding information was enough to disqualify a presidential candidate and that the case was struck out mainly on technicalities.
4) Shettima’s Double Nomination Case
Again, a significant aspect of Peter Obi and Atiku’s case revolved around Vice President Kashim Shettima’s alleged double nomination for the Borno Central Senatorial District and as Tinubu’s running mate.
The argument hinged on Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022, which invalidates a candidate’s nomination if they knowingly allow themselves to be nominated by more than one political party or in more than one constituency.
Recall that in the Final Address to the Tribunal, Peter Obi’s legal team claimed that Shettima was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate while still a senatorial candidate.
The position of the Tribunal, as Justice Tsammani earlier read out in APM’s case against Shettima and Tinubu, is that the law does not allow members of a political party to challenge the nomination of candidates of another political party.
5) Tinubu’s Drug-Related Case and Alleged $460,000 Forfeiture
The petitioners, Atiku Abubakar and the Labour Party (LP), also alleged that President Bola Tinubu had a drug-related case and had forfeited $460,000 to the U.S. government. However, the five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani ruled that the petitioners failed to establish any record of criminal arrest or conviction against Tinubu. This ruling dismisses the allegations related to Tinubu’s criminal history and financial forfeiture.
While these rulings represent significant developments in the case, it appears that the legal battle is not over.
Both parties may choose to appeal these decisions to the Supreme Court, which has the ultimate authority to determine the outcome of the presidential election dispute. The timeline for such appeals is governed by relevant provisions of the Electoral Act and the Constitution, with a deadline of 60 days for the Supreme Court to hear and dispose of appeals from the date of the delivery of the Tribunal’s judgment.
