The presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Prince Adewole Adebayo has revealed why his counterparts in the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar were defeated in the last Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT).
Adebayo who spoke with newsmen on Tuesday said he believed Atiku and Peter Obi experienced defeat in their tribunal cases because what they presented in court diverged from the actual events that transpired during the election.
While bearing his thoughts on the outcome of the tribunal judgment, Adebayo argued that what Obi and Atiku went to court with had no relation to what happened during the election.
According to him, if a petitioner presents evidence that is irrelevant to the case or lacks relevance to the matter being disputed, the case is likely to be dismissed.
He said, “From March when the result was announced till the PEPC began sitting, I kept saying that there are differences between what happened in the field on election day and what is before the court. Your chances of succeeding in court are tied to what you filed and presented to the court and the actual thing that happened in the street.
READ ALSO:
PEPT: Question marks over Nigeria’s last bastion of hope
PEPT’s Judgement Raises Questions on Nigeria’s Democracy –Tanko
PEPT Verdict: A very Good Judgement – Charles Idahosa
“The most important thing that will help you at the election is that you have your registered agent and after the election, your agent will collect the result and you as a candidate. As a candidate, will you collate your results and be an Irev for yourself?
“Any time you go to the INEC and the result they announce is different from the one your agent collected, you will take note of it and when you file your petition in court, you go with your result sheets.
“The petitioners went to court to argue about the status of the FCT and the eligibility of the other party’s candidate, the nomination of the vice President band and other things that have no bearing on what happened on election day. What the petitioners went to court to litigate did not relate to what happened at the election; they were litigating constitutional issues and other statutory arguments, and that is what the court decided.”
