Below are the closing remarks of the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential and vice presidential candidates, Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Senator Kashim Ibrahim Shettima, respectively, at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), as well as reliefs sought at close of trial.
The remarks are in their response to the petition filed at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal by Mr. Peter Gregory Obi and his Labour Party (LP).
Read what they told the Tribunal below:
Petitioners’ reliefs addressed after close of trial
It is pertinent to juxtapose the petitioners’ reliefs as couched in paragraph 102 of their petition, with the evidence (if any), produced before this Honourable Court, more particularly, against the background of the evidence of PW12, whose witness statement merely reproduced the petition, including the reliefs. The contention and/or simple answer of this witness to a pertinent question under cross-examination regarding how many votes were lost by the petitioners, as a result of purported failure to transmit election result to the IREV electronically was that he could not say.
When asked how many votes then sauntered to the advantage of the respondents as a result of the said non-electronic transfer, his answer also followed the same pattern. When reminded that the petitioners won the presidential election in 12 States and what he would want the court to do with the said election, he was evasive. Again, when he was reminded that Alhaji A.A. Atiku, the candidate of the PDP came second in the election and he should tell the court what he wanted done with his votes, his answer was that the said votes be cancelled, notwithstanding the fact that the said Alhaji A.A. Atiku is not a party to the petition.
Aside from the foregoing, relief 1 (i) which prays this court to declare the respondents as unqualified to contest the election is now a non-issue, having been settled categorically by the Supreme Court in Exhibit RA23. Reliefs 1(ii) and (iii), flow from the said relief 1(i), and with respect, the same decision of the Supreme Court has taken effective care of the said reliefs. As for relief 2, may we draw the attention of the court to section 134 (2)(a)(b)(3). In view of relief 2 and for ease of reference. we shall reproduce section 134(3), which provides thus:
“In default of a candidate duly elected in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, there shall be a second election in accordance with subsection (4) of this section at which the only candidate shall be -(a) the candidate who scored the highest number of votes at any election held in accordance with the said subsection (2) of this section; and (b) one among the remaining candidates who has a majority of votes in the highest number of States, so however that where there are more than one candidate with majority of votes in the highest number of States, the candidate among them with the highest total of votes cast at the election shall be the second candidate for the election.”
From the foregoing, the 1st petitioner is constitutionally barred from participating in any election, in the very unlikely event that the election of 25th February, 2023 is voided, as the only candidates constitutionally prescribed to contest any subsequent election shall be the 3rd respondent and the candidate of the PDP who came second, by scoring the next majority of votes in the highest number of States (19 States), to the 1st petitioner’s 16 States, and also coming second by plurality of votes, having scored 6,984,520, far and above 1st petitioner’s 6,101,533 votes. In effect, the petitioners have no locus standi to ask for relief 2, both constitutionally and legally; constitutionally, because he is barred from contesting; legally, because he has no benefit to derive from the said relief, assuming it is granted.
The law is settled that “a party prosecuting an action would [only] have locus standi where the reliefs claimed would confer some benefits on such a party”, otherwise, the action will be an exercise in futility. The same argument neutralizes relief 3, which has been made in the alternative. As for reliefs 4(i) and 4(ii), we again, draw the attention of the court to the evidence of PW12, as well as the arid evidence before this court, to the effect that the majority of votes purportedly scored by the petitioners still remains in the realm of their imagination. Relief 4(iii) and (iv), even by the petitioners’ showing, are unconstitutional.
Relief 5(i) has been subsumed under our arguments on issue 1 and we only restate that the said relief is non-sequitur. Relief 5(ii) gives the petitioners out, as it prays for cancellation of the election and an order mandating the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh election, without suggesting who the participants or candidates at the said election will be. Most humbly, the court cannot decree an order for a fresh election, outside the provisions of the Constitution. In any event, the 1st petitioner has failed to comply with the law of the land, by first making himself a member of the 2nd petitioner, before proceeding to purportedly contest election and even file a petition.
We again, refer to the uncontradicted evidence of the respondents’ sole witness, who observed that the name of the I” petitioner is nowhere located in Exhibit RA18. We respectfully rely on the decision of the apex court in George v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd. (1963) 1 All NLR 71 at 74, to the effect that it is the duty of the courts to administer the laws of the land and that the court will not help a plaintiff who breaches it. Arising from the foregoing, the court is also urged to resolve this issue against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent.
In paragraph 83 of the respondent’s reply, it has been pleaded that the votes scored by him in Kano State was discounted by 10,929; Exhibits RA20 and RA21 were tendered before this Honourable Court and the sole witness called by the respondents was made to speak to them, identifying the figures relevant to the pleading as appearing in column 9 of each of the exhibits, that is, the votes recorded in RA20(Form EC8D) was discounted by 10,929 in Exhibit RA21 (Form EC8D(A). It was a mere arithmetical error which is apparent on the two exhibits.
Thus, the court has the power and jurisdiction to add the discounted figure of 10,929 to the final votes of 8,794,726, recorded for the respondent, to make his votes come to a total of 8,800,369, in conformity with Exhibits RA20 and RA21. We urge the court to so hold. Based on the arguments and submissions contained in this address, we urge this Honourable Court to dismiss this petition as totally lacking in merit, substance and bona fide.
It has been glaringly shown and demonstrated by the presentation of the petition itself and the evidence presented by the petitioners, including the evidence of PW 12, that the petition itself is not only frivolous, but also amounts to a crass abuse of the process of court. In concluding this address, may we draw your Lordships’ attention to the memorable pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC 13 at 22, where Udo-Udoma, JSC., opined thus:
“If there was ever any case completely starved of evidence this is certainly one. This case clearly cries to high heavens in vain to be fed with relevant and admissible evidence. The appellant woefully failed to realise that judges do not act like the oracles of Ife, which is often engaged in crystal gazing and thereafter would proclaim a new Oba in succession to a deceased Oba. Judges cannot perform miracles in the handling of civil claims, and at least of all manufacture evidence for the purpose of assisting a plaintiff win his case.”
In every material particular, the above excerpt from the Supreme Court judgment describes this petition in very clear terms. Read more.
—
©Copyright 2023 News Band
(If you would like to receive CURRENT NEWS updates from News Band on WhatsApp, or Telegram, or wish to send eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to elstimmy@gmail.com and we will respond instantly. Follow us on twitter @News Band; like our Facebook page: News Band.)
