Since May 8, when the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) began hearing the disputes arising from the February 25, 2023 presidential elections and delivered its verdict on September 6, many Nigerians have been struggling to understand the legal jargon used in the judgment.
The aim here is to simplify the verdict, stripping away the legal complexities often employed by members of the legal profession in their business. This will enable the majority of Nigerians to comprehend and form their conclusions about whether justice has been served according to the strict application of the law or the administration of justice has been compromised as being alleged by the losers.
To recap, three out of the eighteen political parties that contested the election filed petitions with the PEPT. These parties were the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Labor Party (LP), and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
All three petitioners presented different reasons for seeking the nullification of the 2023 presidential election results and the declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that the APC candidate, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is the winner and the current President of Nigeria. Tinubu has been carrying out this role adeptly, much to the opposition’s chagrin.
To make the issues adjudicated by the PEPT and their verdict easier to understand, this article will outline them one by one.
It would be beneficial if the judiciary could render their rulings in language accessible to the masses. Furthermore, media outlets like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which sometimes present news in simplified English (pidgin) should also break down the judgment for the benefit of the masses, thereby preventing them from being misled by purveyors of disinformation.
Now, let’s examine the grounds for seeking the nullification of President Bola Tinubu’s election from the perspective of APM. They claimed that Tinubu’s running mate, Senator Kashim Shettima, was nominated twice, which they argue is a violation of the Electoral Act of 2022. Unfortunately for APM, a Supreme Court ruling has established that nomination issues are pre-election matters, and the PEPT’s mandate pertains to post-election matters. Consequently, their petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
Moving on to the LP, they accused INEC of rigging the presidential election massively in favor of the APC and President Tinubu. However, the party failed to present irrefutable evidence as required by law. Their allegations appeared to be based on emotion, lacking credible witnesses, particularly party agents who should have provided original result sheets, copies of which are required by INEC guidelines and the Electoral Act of 2022 to be on the possession of the agents.
Instead of concrete evidence, the LP relied on rumors and third-party materials, including reports from international election monitors and claims that INEC’s electronic portal, IReV, should have been used to collate the result. In light of the above, the LP could not prove its case, as the Electoral Act of 2022 did not stipulate that election results are only authentic if obtained from the IReV portal, as they argued before the PEPT.
Also, ideally, the international observers’ report should have been submitted directly by them, rather than LP which is a third party, and might have tendered the report, possibly without the authors’ consent. Additionally, their claim of mutilated Form EC8 A failed to meet due diligence standards because the documents were sourced online, rather than being hard copies from party agents who are supposed to possess them. The principle of law dictates that the accuser bears the burden of proving their allegations. In light of the absence of this proof and the aforementioned grounds, the LP petition was deemed lacking in merit and dismissed by the PEPT.
Concerning the PDP, their case revolved around the authenticity of President Tinubu’s degree from Chicago State University (CSU), which they alleged was fake. They also claimed that President Tinubu had been criminally indicted in the United States of America (USA), with $460,000 belonging to him confiscated by US authorities. If true, this would have violated Nigerian statutory rules regarding qualifications to run for the office of president. However, these allegations were made despite CSU confirming Tinubu’s attendance at the university and his earning a bachelor’s degree in 1979, which he presented to INEC. Furthermore, US authorities, including their embassy in Nigeria, have stated since 2003 that President Tinubu has no criminal record in the USA, as alleged by the PDP. Consequently, the PEPT dismissed the PDP’s petition, citing a lack of merit.
The recent verdict by the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) has left many astonished. After all the buzz created by three petitioners who claimed to have President Tinubu cornered, the PEPT declared their claims to be mere fantasies devoid of legal basis. This outcome is nothing short of an anticlimax.
It appears that the 15 other parties that accepted their defeat demonstrated more astuteness than the big three who chose to challenge the presidential election results with great enthusiasm and fanfare. Despite all their grandstanding, their case ended up dissipating into thin air.
One can’t help but feel embarrassed on behalf of the heavyweight legal professionals involved in the prosecution of the case featuring up to fifty Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN). One wonders if they were on a genuine quest for justice or merely fishing around, as the PEPT aptly put it, during the four-month deliberation period from May 8 to September 6.
In an attempt reminiscent of grasping at straws, they alleged that the 80-page verdict bore the watermark of the APC, insinuating that it was written by the APC’s legal team for the PEPT. Such claims are patently ridiculous.
However, in the ruling of the adjudicators, the petitioners’ claim of massive election rigging by INEC in favor of the APC and President Tinubu was dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence. Their assertion of victory over the declared winner, President Bola Tinubu, relied more on emotion and intimidation rather than presenting incontrovertible facts before the judges to substantiate their allegations.
In legal proceedings, judges are expected to grant the prayers of petitioners who allege they have been wronged and defendants who have been declared winners. This determination typically hinges on points of law, not emotions.
The PEPT’s judgment, contrary to the petitioners’ expectations of an emotional victory, centered on points of law, facts, and evidence—fundamental elements for the administration of justice.
While some observers criticize the tribunal’s decisions, attributing them to inconsistencies, others accuse the judges of being influenced, leading to conspiracy theories. One such claim was the absurd notion that the verdict was crafted by the APC and President Tinubu’s team, merely because an online version shared by them bore an APC watermark.
It seems the PEPT anticipated intense public scrutiny of its verdict, given the negative sentiments generated against the judiciary and the five judges on the tribunal. Consequently, the judgment was publicly announced via live television broadcast and online streaming, making it accessible to a global audience interested in Nigerian political developments.
Notably, false claims such as secret meetings between the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, and President Tinubu, as well as allegations of a judge resigning due to pressure to compromise the judgment, were debunked as unsubstantiated fantasies. These claims led to the ‘Eyes on Judiciary’ campaign on social media, later sanctioned by relevant authorities following a judicial complaint of intimidation.
In contrast to past opaque judgments that stirred controversy, the PEPT’s transparency in citing points of law and precedents in its 2023 election verdict stands out. The tribunal aimed to ensure that all Nigerians, as well as international election observers, were well-informed about the ruling.
The live broadcast and streaming of the verdict, spanning nearly thirteen hours with judges taking turns to read it, was an unprecedented and strategic move. It sought to rebuild trust between the judiciary and a public that had been swayed by opposition politicians’ sentiments, which had cast doubt on the judiciary’s integrity.
In my previous article titled ‘Judiciary On Trial: Televising Tribunal Proceedings To The Rescue?’ published in my column on May 16, I argued that televising tribunal proceedings could alleviate mutual suspicion. This proposal came about after both the PDP and APC demanded it, with the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) endorsing the idea.
I expressed in my column, which was widely published in traditional and online media, that when the outgoing administration began, the judiciary appeared untainted, like a last bastion of integrity. However, it eventually succumbed to undue executive interference, tarnishing its image in the eyes of most Nigerians. This irony of the judiciary being on “trial” instead of lawbreakers being tried by it was quite evident.
However, the court ruled against televising the proceedings, stating that the tribunal is not meant for drama. At the time, the justification for this decision was not clear, and it was not well-received by the masses. This was especially true because the proceedings of the Human Rights Violation Investigation Commission, known as the OPUTA panel, headed by retired Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, were broadcast live. Notably, even when Gens. Ibrahim Babangida, and Sani Abacha, former military heads of state that were accused of violations, were subpoenaed to appear, but they failed to do so without any consequences.
It is interesting to note that in the case of the PEPT (Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal), the defendant, APC, and its presidential candidate, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, had 12 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) among their legal team of 50 lawyers, while the PDP had a team of 17 SANs, and LP with its presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, fielded 12 SANs while INEC’s team had 9 SANs. This unprecedented convergence of SANs representing a wealth of senior legal minds in our country was monumental.
Before delving further into the offensive and defensive outcomes of the 2023 presidential election petitions tribunal, it is important to commend the 97 million Nigerian voters who collected their Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) and the 37 million who exercised their civic duty by voting for their choice of president on February 25. They showed patience and understanding by waiting for the tribunal’s verdict on September 6, which was nearly six months after the election.
Considering the peaceful atmosphere in Nigeria since the election, except for a few incendiary comments from the aggrieved, it is worth appreciating the exemplary conduct of Nigerian voters. This stands in stark contrast to the violence that erupted in other African countries like Kenya in 2007/8 and Malawi after their general elections, where many innocent lives were lost due to post-election crises. In those cases, aggrieved voters took the law into their own hands instead of allowing the rule of law to prevail, as we have impressively done in Nigeria through the PEPT process.
Fortunately, Nigeria’s 1999 constitution as amended and the Electoral Act 2022 provide for those not satisfied with the PEPT verdict to appeal to the Supreme Court.
To provide context, the 2023 general elections involved 18 political parties, starting on February 25 and ending on March 18 of the same year. Among these, the PDP, LP, and APM proceeded to the tribunal to challenge the victory of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC in the presidential contest.
Before discussing the offensive and defensive outcomes of the 2023 presidential election petitions tribunal, let’s first unpack the issues in contention from legal, emotional, and intimidation perspectives.
