Having taken a cursory look at this petition, viz-a-viz provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended) and the Electoral Act, 2022 I have come to the conclusion that the petition is not worth the paper it is written on, having regards to the Naira crunch.
Please, permit me to take the grounds of petition one after the other:
1) Qualification
Assuming without conceding that the President-elect was convicted for drug trafficking in 1993 (30 years ago) how does this make Senator Bola Tinubu unqualified to run for the office of President by virtue of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended)?
Section 37(e) of the Constitution provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if ‘ within a period less than ten years before the date of the election to the office of President he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence, involving dishonesty or he has been found guilty of the contravention of the Code Of Conduct;……..’.
If the alleged conviction was in 1993 (30 years ago), how has this offended the provisions of Section 37 (e)? This ground will summersault at the Election Tribunal.
2) The second ground of petition is that the President-elect was not elected by majority of lawful votes. This petition is a lie against itself. Surprisingly, the same elections, under the same conditions and personnel, produced members of the National Assembly, already congratulated the Petitioners. That is a double speak.
THIRD SCHEDULE PART 1 Section 15(a) of the 1999 Constitution gives the Independent National Electoral Commission power to organize, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President, ……….’
The Electoral Act gives Chairman of the Electoral body power to make returns and declare winners of elections.
On 1st April, 2023 the INEC Chairman, in compliance with this statutory mandate, made a declaration naming Senator Bola Tinubu as winner of the Presidential election.The declaration was made by INEC Chairman, who has the statutory power to do . In so doing, the Chairman announced the aggregate votes declared by the Returning Officers in the thirty six States and FCT. The Chairman merely announced the aggregate of figures returned by the Returning Officers, without a figure of his own, from the voting areas. If other candidates disagree with their collated figures, our Electoral laws provide for redress, through the tribunals. This is not enough to bring down the roof of Nigeria. Let the Presidential election tribunal decide.
3) The third ground of petition delves on the percentage of votes the President-elect secured in the FCT.
Whilst majority of Nigerians are quick to go to town with Section 134 1(b) of the Constitution which requires a President-elect to have not less than one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the Constitution deliberately failed to mention the number of States in Nigeria, to protect that section of the Constitution in the event of creation of more States in Nigeria.
The same Constitution that mentioned FCT also went further to clarify the status of FCT in Section 299 of the same Constitution.
Section 299 under the heading, Application of Constitution, and I quote: ” The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation;….”.
By the provision of this section, therefore, the FCT is a State, and should be regarded as one as envisaged by the Constitution, even though regulated by the National Assembly and the Presidency.
4) The call to invalidate the election on grounds of corruption and non adherence to the Electoral Act is mendacious and laughable.
If the author’s of the petition had a copy of the Electoral Act, they would have discovered that the Electoral Act prescribes substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act. For instance, isolated cases of infractions, here and there, cannot pass for infringements as envisaged by this provision. The drafters of the Electoral Act know that strict compliance with the Electoral Act would have rendered non-compliance in one Polling unit a noncompliance with the Act.
A mischievous politician would have worked very hard to ensure he disrupted voting in at least one polling unit to get an election cancelled. It is for this reason the Electoral Act provides that no election shall be cancelled where there was substantial compliance with the Act. What remains now is for the Petitioners to provide evidence of non substantial compliance with the Electoral Act in the February 25, Presidential election. I cannot wait to see the weight of evidence that will pass this test.
5) The fifth ground of petition is an amazing addition to our Electoral jurisprudence. A situation where a participant in an Electoral process can select who his opponents would be is novel and unorthodox. Whether the learned justices of the Election Petitions Tribunal will give this ground of petition a listening hear will give Nigerians opportunity to choose who their opponents would be in future elections or any other contest, for that matter.
My only worry in this matter is the language judges employ in describing counsel in election petitions, before them, that lack merit, depth and substance. I cannot wait for the fireworks to commence at the Tribunal. Let us all wait and see.
High Chief (Dr) Hanson Aimofumeh
Lagos