Peter Obi only made allegations, failed to show how he won major votes – Tribunal
The Presidential Election Petitions Court on Wednesday said the presidential candidate of the Labour Pary (LP) Peter Obi failed to specify how they scored the majority of lawful votes in the February 25 presidential election.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared Bola Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election, defeating Obi, Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and other candidates.
In his petition, Obi and the Labour Party said they won the election and should be declared winner.
At the ongoing Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT), Justice Abba Bello Mohammed while reading the lead judgement said the Obi and his party only made made generic allegations of irregularities, suppression of votes and corrupt practices to rob them of their votes, especially in Rivers, Benue, Lagos, Taraba, Imo and Osun states but failed to specify the polling units affected.
Justice Mohammed further held that LP also failed to prove the allegations of overvoting against the All Progressives Congress (APC) and their actual reduced votes.
The Tribunal said the petitioners only made “generic accusations of irregularities” in the election but failed to specify the anomaly, the places where it occurred, and those affected.
“They failed to state the number of votes affected and the number of people disenfranchised,” says Justice Abba Mohammed on the LP/Obi petition,” Justice Mohammed held.
The court said that although Peter Obi and LP claimed to have scored the majority of lawful votes cast, they failed to state the number of lawful votes they scored.
“The determination of election is about figures,” Justice Mohammed said.
“It is unimaginable that a petitioner will allege widespread rigging in 176,000 Polling units, over 8,000 wards, 774 LGAs, 36 States and FCT without stating the specific place where the alleged irregularities occur.
“The law is very clear that where someone alleged irregularities in a particular polling unit, such person must prove the particular irregularities in that polling unit for him to succeed in his petition.
“Labour Party made generic allegations of irregularities and said they would rely on spreadsheets, inspection reports, and forensic analysis… but the documents promised by the petitioners were not attached to the petition.”
The judgement is still ongoing at the time of filing this report.