The election petition tribunal in Abuja has ruled that Peter Obi‘s petition as the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 elections was vague in some areas.
The tribunal held in the lead judgement read by Justice Abba Bello Mohammed that the petitioners (Obi and LP) only alluded to irregularities in the election but failed to specify the anomalies, the locations where they occurred, and those affected.
The petitioners also failed to state the number of votes affected and the number of people disenfranchised, according to the tribunal.
The court ruled that, while Obi and LP claimed to have received the majority of valid votes cast, they failed to specify how many valid votes they received.
“The determination of election is about figures,” the court held.
The petitioners also failed to prove that their votes were suppressed, according to the court, by failing to specify the number of votes suppressed.
The court also dismissed several paragraphs of the LP’s petition as generic and vague, citing the fact that the affected paragraphs failed to identify the specific polling units where irregularities occurred.
The All Progressives Congress (APC)’s President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima argued that they had the locus standi to file the petition against Obi because he only joined the LP a few days before the election, rather than the required 30 days.
Tinubu and Shettima had no right to challenge Obi’s candidature
However, the court ruled that Tinubu and Shettima were not within their rights to challenge Obi’s candidature.“ The issue of membership of a political party is an internal party affair,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal also dismissed the respondents’ objection that Obi and LP failed to include Atiku as a respondent in their petition.
The court ruled that Section 133 of the Electoral Act requires the loser and winner of an election, as well as the person or body in charge of the election, to be joined as respondents.
The main petition is being heard by Justice Haruna Tsammani.
The court determined that witnesses 3,4,5,6, 7,8,9,10,11, and 13 subpoenaed by LP are not court witnesses and that the witness statements were filed late.
“Out of a total of 13 witnesses called by Obi/LP, 10 of those witnesses are not countenanced by the court,” he said.
Tsammani claims the ten oath witness statements are incompetent and cannot be used in court.