Breaking: PEPT strikes out some portions of Obi’s claim of irregularities, corrupt practices

Some of the allegations of irregularities and corrupt practices made by Peter Obi in his petition contesting the declaration of Bola Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election have been deleted by a five-member Presidential Election Petition Tribunal led by Justice Haruna Tsammani.

On the basis that they were “vague, imprecise, nebulous and failed to meet the requirements of pleadings,” Justice Abba Mohammed, who is reading the lead judgment, struck out the relevant passages.
Justice Mohammed ruled on the preliminary objections made by INEC, Tinubu, and the APC, holding that “averments” must not be vague or ambiguous and that the purpose of pleadings is to inform respondents of the relevant facts so that they can prepare properly.
The PEPC emphasized that in a case involving claimed irregularities in more than 500 polling places, it is insufficient for the petitioners to generalize about a few polling places or collation centers.

Mohammed ruled that “averments must not be generic but precise” and that “petitioners failed to mention polling units where anomalies occurred or where agents complained of alleged malpractice and irregularities.
In addition, PEPC emphasized that not a single voting place was named among the total of over 18,000 polling places where the petitioners claimed INEC uploaded “blurred results” to the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) Portals.

They failed to identify polling places where the results of the election were not uploaded or where Tinubu’s score was increased or decreased.

The tribunal found that “they did not show the majority of votes they claimed they had scored,” adding that the petitioners merely make general claims of irregularities and malpractices.

It is inconceivable that a petitioner would claim widespread rigging across over 8,000 wards, 774 LGAs, 36 States, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) without identifying the precise location where the claimed irregularities take place.

Mohammed further criticized the petitioners for basing their arguments on spreadsheet analysis, inspection findings, and expert assessments.

Such materials, in Mohammed’s opinion, should be provided to the respondents so they can conduct their own research and provide appropriate responses.

The spreadsheet report, inspection findings, and expert reports were not served; instead, they were only mentioned as papers that would be considered in deciding the petition, the court ruled.