TheNewsGuru

Tag: Tribunal

  • Edo LG Elections Tribunal receives 18 petitions, begins sitting Nov. 15

    Edo LG Elections Tribunal receives 18 petitions, begins sitting Nov. 15

    The Edo Local Government Elections Petitions Tribunal says it has received 18 petitions from Labour Party and it’s candidates in the just-concluded September 2 Local Government polls.

    The Tribunal Secretary, Mr Emmanuel Uwagboe, made the disclosure in an interview in Benin on Monday.

    According to him, hearing of the petitions will commence on Wednesday, November 15.

    “The two tribunals, headed by Justice Terry Momodu and Justice Rachel Ogbevoen, were inaugrated in order to meet up with the time frame,” he said.

    Uwagboe said that the petitions were filed within the 30-day period allowed by law, counting from the day the results were declared by the State Independent Electoral Commission.

    He further said that the filing of petitions ended on October 1.

    The petitioners were contending that there were no elections in the 18 LGAs of the state.

     

  • HURIWA expresses concern over Plateau Election Petitions Tribunal’s judgments

    HURIWA expresses concern over Plateau Election Petitions Tribunal’s judgments

    A Civil rights advocacy group, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), on Sunday expressed concern over what it termed as “contradictory judgments” by the Plateau State Election Petitions Tribunal.

    Its National Coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko, at a news conference in Abuja on Sunday, said there was need for the judiciary to “adhere to the principles of fairness, justice and impartiality in its service delivery to restore public confidence in the judiciary”.

    He said that the recent tribunal judgment in Plateau and the inconsistency with established legal norms and principles, had raised some concerns about the independence of the judiciary.

    “These concerns go beyond post-election matters and extend to pre-election cases which, according to established legal precedent, should not be revisited at the appellate level,” he said.

    Onwubiko said that it was a thing of concern that in some instances where the All Progressives Congress (APC) came second, the winner was removed and the certificate of return was given to the APC.

    He added that in other cases where the APC came in third or lower, the courts ordered a rerun.

    He observed that in the case of Plateau North Senatorial District won by Simon Mwadkwon of the PDP, APC came third and the tribunal annulled the election and ordered a rerun.

    He cited another case of Jos North/Bassa Federal Constituency won by Musa Agah of the PDP with the APC candidate also coming third.

    “The panel annulled the victory of the PDP and ordered a rerun, excluding the PDP.

    “In the third Appeal Case of Shendam/Quan-Pan/Mikang Federal Constituency won by Isaac Kwallu of the PDP, John Dafwan of the APC came second.

    “Here, the Appeal Court Justices, in Court of Appeal No. CA/J/EP/PL/HR/18/2023, annulled the victory of the PDP candidate.

    “The court declared the APC candidate winner and ordered that the Certificate of Return issued to the PDP candidate be witdrawn and a fresh Certificate of Return issued to the APC candidate.”

    He wondered how pre-election matters, including issues around nomination of candidates, which the Supreme Court has settled, were used by the panel in its judgments.

    “This troubling trend is not limited to post-election matters but also includes pre-election cases that, according to established legal precedent, should not be revisited at the appellate level,” he stated.

    Onwubiko said that the integrity of the judiciary was paramount in upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair and just elections.

    He called on the judiciary to be transparent in its decision-making process and provide clear explanations for its judgments as accountability was essential to maintaining the public’s trust in the judicial system.

    “We emphasise the need for the judiciary to maintain its independence from political interference.

    “Judges must be guided solely by the law and the Constitution, regardless of their personal or political affiliations.

    “We urge the relevant authorities to review and reconsider recent judgments in Plateau that appear to be inconsistent with established legal norms, especially in respect of pre-election matters.

    “The judiciary must work to restore public confidence by adhering to the principles of fairness, justice, and impartiality. This is essential to preserving the sanctity of our democracy,” he said.

    While reaffirming HURIWA’s commitment to the rule of law, democracy and justice, Onwubiko pledged that the organisation would monitor developments in Plateau and across the nation to ensure that the rights of the people are upheld.

    He called on all stakeholders, including the judiciary, political parties, and the public, to work together to protect and uphold the values that define Nigeria as a nation.

  • Gov. Fintiri reacts after tribunal victory

    Gov. Fintiri reacts after tribunal victory

    Gov. Ahmadu Fintiri of Adamawa has described his victory at the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal as “victory to democracy and the rule of law”.

    Fintiri stated this shortly after the tribunal dismissed APC’s Aishatu Binani petition against his re-election for the second term in Yola on Saturday.

    Recall that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Fintiri winner after a supplementary election on April 18.

    The Governorship Candidate of the APC, Sen. Aishatu Binani, had filed a petition challenging the election, alleging that the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act.

    Reacting, Fintiri assured good governance for the people of the state.

    According to him, this victory is also a victory for doing more to ensure massive development in the state.

    Fintiri called on the litigants to step aside in order to move ahead for the development of the state and county at large.

    He appreciated the tribunal judges for the role played in ensuring fairness and justice.

    Fintiri also commended his legal team, journalists and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) for their roles from the time of the election up to the tribunal judgment.

  • BREAKING: Tribunal upholds election of Tambuwal

    BREAKING: Tribunal upholds election of Tambuwal

    The Election Petitions Tribunal in Sokoto State on Wednesday upheld the victory of former governor Aminu Tambuwal as the duly elected Senator representing  Sokoto South senatorial district.

    The three-member tribunal panel led by Justice Denis Echesi, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Alhaji Danbaba Danbuwa.

    The tribunal held that the petitioners, APC and its candidate, failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, they were ordered to pay a fine of N200,000 to each of the respondents.

    Respondent’s Counsel, Dr. Suleiman Usman, SAN, after the judgment said that the tribunal conducted a thorough examination of all the issues presented during the case.

    “Ultimately, the tribunal found the evidence presented by the petitioners to be unreliable, often contradictory, and frequently based on hearsay, including the documents they submitted.

    “The tribunal found the petition unproven and affirmed the election of Sen. Tambuwal as the duly elected Senator in the National Assembly,” he stated.

    On the other hand, Mr Chris Ndeoyiro, Counsel for the petitioners, his clients will wait for a copy of the tribunal’s judgment to review its contents and determine their next course of action.

    “The judgment itself is disappointing, similar to how the tribunal dismissed the petition.

    “However, there are certain aspects of the judgment we find unsatisfactory.

    “We’ll receive the copy of the judgment from the tribunal tomorrow, and after a thorough review, we’ll decide on our next steps,” he said.

  • Oyo: Tribunal dismisses APC petition, affirms Adigun’s election

    Oyo: Tribunal dismisses APC petition, affirms Adigun’s election

    The National and State Assembly Elections Petitions Tribunal, sitting in Iyaganku, Ibadan, on Monday, affirmed the election of Abass Adigun for the Ibadan North East/South East Federal Constituency.

    The tribunal dismissed the petition filed by Adedapo Lam-Adesina of the All Progressives Congress (APC), challenging Adigun’s victory in the February 25 poll.

    The tribunal dismissed the petition and awarded N1.5 millon cost in favour of Adigun (a.k.a. Agboworin) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    A breakdown of the cost showed that Adigun, PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were awarded N.5 million each.

    Lam-Adesina, a former member of the House of Representatives, had approached the tribunal to challenge Adigun’s qualification to contest the election.

    He also alleged that Adigun did not win the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and requested that the Certificate of Return issued to him be withdrawn.

    He further asked the tribunal to order the respondent to refund to the House, all the entitlements he had enjoyed.

    In the alternative, Lam-Adesina, who claimed that INEC did not conduct the election in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, asked that the February 25 poll and that of the supplementary of April 15 be annulled.

    Relying on a report from an online search engine tagged: Spokeo.com, the petitioner alleged that Adigun forged his academic certificates, using different surnames, such as Adigun and Amusat, in his WASC and Diploma Certificate.

    He further asserted that the second respondent also held Nigeria and the U.S. citizenship.

    Mr  Yusuff Ogunrinde, the Consel for Adigun, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition and affirm Adigun’s victory, saying that all the grounds of the petition were unsubstantiated.

    In the one hour, 48 minutes judgment read by Justice Yakubu, the tribunal said it found that the issue of Adigun’s qualification for the election was a pre-election matter and so was not an issue for determination by the tribunal.

    On the allegation that Adigun forged his certificates, the tribunal said that the petitioners failed in their evidence because they could not produce the original documents and juxtapose them with those they considered fake.

    “Adigun was used 23 times in different documents and Abass and Amusat used 8 times, he was not even criminalised for using the names.

    “Use of more than one name is even long settled and no law forbids anybody for using more than one name.

    “There was no convincing evidence that the second respondent is not the owner of the names. It does not tantamount to forgery.

    “To forge is to make another copy of the original, to fabricate or deceive. The petitioners did not present the original and the forged copies of the said documents,” the Judge said.

    On the allegation of dual citizenship, the judge cited section 134 (1)(a) of the Evidence Act, saying, “I have looked through the evidence, I could not see anywhere the respondent’s place of birth is proved not to be Ibadan.

    “Can he then be said not to be a Nigerian citizen? It is not a ground for disqualification.

    “I am of the view that any other interpretation aside what is contained in the Constitution does not hold water,” the tribinal said.

    It further resolved that Adigun is a Nigerian by birth and that acquiring the U.S. citizenship “does not extinguish the fact that he is a Nigerian by birth.

    “I therefore cannot agree that the second respondent should be disqualified on the ground of dual citizenship.

    “INEC cleared the second respondent through his credentials. There was no evidence adduced that he is not the owner of the certificates presented.

    “The first petitioner even said in his evidence that he does not know anything about spokeo,” the judge said.

    The tribunal, therefore, dismissed the petition as baseless and lacking in merit.

    Accordingly, it ruled that “the election that produced the second respondent is hereby affirmed and the petition is dismissed”.

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses APM’s appeal against Tinubu

    BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses APM’s appeal against Tinubu

    The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the appeal filed by the Allied Peoples Movement, (APM) challenging the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) which affirmed President Bola Tinubu’s victory.

    Justice Inyang Okoro, leading six other justices of the apex court dismissed the appeal saying that hearing it would amount to “a waste of the precious time of the court’’.

    The APM had in the appeal prayed the court to hold that the PEPC misconceived the material facts before it, when it struck out its undefended petition against Tinubu’s victory.

    The party asked the court to hold that the withdrawal of Kabiru Masari from the race, by operation of law, amounted to automatic withdrawal and invalidation of the candidature of Tinubu as the presidential candidate of the APC.

    It would be recalled that Masari was named the running mate of Tinubu before he was replaced by Vice President Kashim Shetima

    The APM said in its brief of argument by its counsel, Mr Chukwuma-Machukwu-Ume, SAN, that the PEPC wrongly struck out its petition.

    The party prayed the court to set aside the decision of the lower court as being misconceived.

    APM also argued that the striking out of Masari’s name from its petition and its consequent dismissal on Sept. 6 was in error, as Masari was a necessary party in the petition.

    The PEPC had dismissed APM’s petition based on pre- hearing motions filed by INEC, APC and Shettima.

    According to the APM, the grounds upon which its petition was predicated was that Tinubu was at the time of the presidential election, not qualified to contest in line with Section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

    Machukwu-Ume told the court that the PEPC misconceived the material facts and case of his client and wrongly progressed to determine issues not contemplated by the appellant’s petition and erroneously dismissed the petition.

    However, efforts by Machukwu- Ume to move the appeal were rejected by the panel on the grounds that moving it would amount to wasting the precious time of the court.

    Justice Inyang Okoro, the presiding justice insisted that the appeal be withdrawn since the issue had been decided.

    “We have read your appeal and the issues raised therein.

    “You are not asking us to make your candidate the president if your appeal succeeds.

    “You just want to state the law and go home, without benefit. We have other appeals that are substantial and withdrawing this appeal will help reduce the workload on us.

    “We have read the appeal and are unanimous that it is a non-issue, having been pronounced upon by this court,’’ Justice Okoro said.

    Machukwu-Ume , though reluctantly,  accepted  and withdrew the appeal on behalf of his client, the APM.

    All the respondents did not oppose to the withdrawal and did not ask for cost.

    The seven-member panel consequently dismissed the appeal after it was withdrawn by the appellant.

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court reserves judgement in Atiku, Obi’s appeals against Tinubu

    BREAKING: Supreme Court reserves judgement in Atiku, Obi’s appeals against Tinubu

    The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) in the Feb. 25, election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, seeking to dismiss and set aside the  judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).

    The court similarly reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr Peter Obi also challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu.

    Recall that the PEPC on Sept. 6, dismissed Atiku and Obi’s petitions for lacking in merit and affirmed the election of President Bola Tinubu.

    The seven-man panel of justices led by Justice Inyang Okoro, after hearing both appeals on Monday in Abuja, said the date for judgment would be communicated to the parties.

    Other justices on the panel are Justice Uwani Abaji, Justice Lawal Garba, Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, Justice Adamu Jauro, Justice Tijani Abubakar, and Justice Emma Agim.

    In Atiku’s notice of appeal predicated on 35 grounds, he told the apex court that the PEPC erred on the side of law in the judgment delivered by the Chairman of the panel,  Justice Haruna Tsammani.

    Atiku, through his lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche, SAN told the court that the judgment of the PEPC was a miscarriage of justice.

    He argued that the lower court also erred in law when it failed to nullify the presidential election held on Feb. 25, on the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

    According to him, by the evidence before the court, INEC conducted the election based on grave and gross misrepresentation contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

    Specifically, Atiku asked the Supreme Court to set aside the whole findings and conclusions of the PEPC on the grounds that they did not represent the true picture of the grounds of his petition.

    Obi, on the other hand through his lead counsel Mr Levi Uzoukwu, SAN also prayed the apex court to set aside the judgment of the PEPC that dismissed his petition.

    Uzoukwu prayed the court to allow the appeal of his client and grant all the prayers sought.

    In their responses,  counsel to the respondents, the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), President Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, (APC) each urged the court to dismiss the appeals for want of merit and for being frivolous.

    Specifically, President Tinubu’s lawyer, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN described the appeals as lacking in merit.

    Olanipekun specifically told the court that the appeal filed by Atiku was abusive in nature and asked the court to dismiss the appeal.

    Mr Mahmoud Yakubu, SAN for INEC and Mr Akin Olujimi similarly asked the panel to dismiss the appeals for want of merit.

    Atiku and Obi are before the apex court challenging Sept. 6  judgment of the PEPC which dismissed their petitions challenging the victory of President Bola Tinubu at the Feb. 25 presidential polls.

    Although both petitions were consolidated, they were heard separately.

  • What Atiku, Peter Obi told Supreme Court about PEPC’s judgement

    What Atiku, Peter Obi told Supreme Court about PEPC’s judgement

    The Supreme Court of Nigeria began hearing today the appeals filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate in the February 25 presidential election, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku.

    TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) reports the Supreme Court will also hear the petitions filed by the Labour Party and it’s presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi as well as that of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), all challenging the judgement of the 2023 Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC).

    Atiku and the PDP; Obi and the Labour Party and APM are before the apex court challenging the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) which affirmed the election of President Bola Tinubu.

    Justice Inyang Okorowo is leading six other justices of the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. Other justices on the seven-man panel are Justice Uwani Abaji, Justice Lawal Garba, Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, Justice Adamu Jauro, Justice Tijani Abubakar, and Justice Emma Agim.

    TNG reports that the National Security Adviser, (NSA) Mr Nuhu Ribadu, the Chief of Staff to the president Mr Femi Gbajabiamila and the All Progressives Congress, (APC) Chairman, Mr Abdullahi Ganduje are among  dignitories present in court to witness the proceedings.

    In court filings at the Supreme Court, Mr Chris Uche, Atiku’s counsel contended that the PEPC’s judgment occasioned “grave error and miscarriage of justice” in its legal reasoning by upholding Mr Tinubu’s election as president.

    In the document dated Sept. 18, Uche contended that the presidential election court failed to adequately evaluate his client’s evidence before reaching its conclusions.

    He further contended, among other issues, that the presidential election court erred in law when it “failed to nullify the presidential election held on Feb. 25 on the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, when by evidence before the tribunal, INEC conducted the election based on grave and gross misrepresentation contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the “doctrine of legitimate expectation.”

    In Obi’s appeal at the Supreme Court, his lawyer, Livy Uzoukwu, filed 51 grounds in challenging the presidential election court’s judgment.

    Uzoukwu, a SAN, argued that PEPC reached the wrong conclusions.

    In one of the grounds, Mr Uzoukwu told the Supreme Court that the five-member panel of the Presidential Election Petition Court led by Haruna Tsammani “erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion” when it dismissed Mr Obi’s suit.

    He faulted the presidential election court’s evaluation of Mr Obi’s evidence. He said the court erroneously ruled that Obi’s case failed to establish the polling stations where electoral malpractices took place during the February presidential election.

    The lawyer also said the lower court’s conclusions caused a “grave miscarriage of justice” when it held that Obi did not identify the specific number of votes he polled at polling units where he accused INEC and Tinubu of suppression of votes.

    In its appeal at Supreme Supreme, APM’s lawyer, Chukwuma–Machukwu–Ume, a SAN, predicated his client’s suit on 10 grounds.

    Machukwu-Ume, a SAN, prayed the apex court to nullify the presidential election court verdict for its numerous errors in law.

    He argued that sections 131 and 142 (1) of the 1991 Constitution are inextricably linked and neither can be confined as a pre-election matter, as these qualifications are conditions precedent to, for being elected into the office of President.

  • Tribunal upholds election of Labour Party Reps member in Anambra

    Tribunal upholds election of Labour Party Reps member in Anambra

    The National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal in Awka, on Friday upheld the election of Rep. Afam Ogene as member representing Ogbaru Federal Constituency of Anambra state, in the House of Representatives.

    The three-member panel, presided over by Justice S.Y. Abubakar, unanimously adopted that Ogene of the Labour Party (LP) won at the polls.

    Abubakar, who read the judgement, dismissed all the reliefs sought by the petitioner, Mr Chukwuka Onyema, of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The election in Ogbaru Federal Constituency was declared inconclusive by the Independent National Electoral Commission, after the February 25 presidential and National Assembly elections.

    As a result, a rerun election was held at the constituency on April 15 but Onyema proceeded to the tribunal to challenge Ogene’s victory.

    In the ruling, the chairman declared that Onyema failed to prove his case.

    In his reactions, Ogene described the judgment as true validation of the will of the people and the undeniable grace of God.

    He commended the tribunal for a thorough job and his constituents for their selfless support, encouragement and prayers.

    “This judgment will further energise me to continue to provide quality representation for the people.

    “I sincerely appreciate the entire Ogbaru people, irrespective of the political or social divides, for their steadfastness in working and praying for the good of Ogbaru.

    “We are remarkably a peaceful people, and should not allow politics or personal interest of the political class or politically exposed people to divide or destroy us.

    “I’m also extending my hands of fellowship to the PDP candidate, and I urge him to avoid the temptation of further judicial objection,” he said.

  • What verdicts of tribunals show about 2023 elections – INEC

    What verdicts of tribunals show about 2023 elections – INEC

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has said judgements delivered so far by election petitions tribunals across the country show that the 2023 elections were credible.

    TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) reports seven months after the conduct of the 2023 general elections, the various tribunals handling petitions from defeated candidates have dismissed 712 cases.

    Also, 179 candidates have withdrawn the petitions they filed against their opponents before the election petition tribunals across the federation.

    These facts were revealed yesterday in Abuja by NEC, which said 891 petitions of 1,196 on 2023 polls had so far been either dismissed or withdrawn.

    Contrary to claims, INEC said the loss of 74.4 percent of the petitions confirmed the credibility of the 2023 elections it conducted for state and national legislators, governors and president.

    INEC’s Information and Voter Education Committee Chairman, Sam Olumekun, in a statement issued in Abuja, said reports about the credibility of the elections contained inaccuracies and called for a more balanced perspective on the matter.

    “Of 1,196 petitions, 712 were dismissed and 179 withdrawn. This means that in 891 cases (74.4 percent), the tribunals found no merit in the petitions and affirmed the result of the elections conducted by INEC.

    “It is surprising how the mere filing of petitions constituted a blow on the integrity of the recent elections conducted by INEC when in fact they constitute an integral part of the democratic process,” Olumekun said.

    According to him, as of Monday, 16th October, 2023, of 82 governorship election petitions, 72 (87.8 percent) were either dismissed or withdrawn by the petitioners.

    “For the senatorial elections, 146 petitions were filed, of which 100 (68.5 percent) were dismissed or withdrawn.

    “For the House of Representatives, 413 petitions were filed out of which 309 (74.81 percent) were dismissed or withdrawn while for State Houses of Assembly, 550 petitions were filed, of which 468 (82.4 percent) were dismissed or withdrawn.

    “A comparative analysis would have addressed the deliberate effort in the report to portray the 2023 General Election as regressive on account of litigation without empirical evidence,” Olumekun said.

    The statement by INEC reads in full below:

    MEDIA REPORT ON ELECTION PETITIONS AND THE CREDIBILITY OF INEC

    The attention of the Commission has been drawn to a front page report by The Guardian (Nigeria) newspaper in its edition of Wednesday 18th October 2023 entitled “INEC’s credibility sinks as 94% contested posts awaits tribunal”. The Commission would have ignored the report if it did not emanate from one of our country’s flagship newspapers which has over the years established a reputation for the quality of its stories, incisive analysis, factual accuracy, balance and lately the innovative use of infographics.

    However, its report under reference contains inaccurate figures, mix up of pre-election and post-election cases, skewed comparative perspective and a headline that suggests that election petitions draw from the action or inaction of INEC.

    First, basic fact check on the information regualrly published by the Commission and available on our website would have shown that in 2023, elections were not conducted in 1,280 constituencies, including 782 State Assembly seats. On the contrary, elections were conducted in 1,491 constituencies across the country made up of 1 Presidential, 28 Governorship, 109 Senatorial, 360 House of Representatives and 993 State Assembly constituencies. Similarly, the claim that State Assembly elections were held in only 28 States of the country is made on the lazy assumption that no such elections were held in the eight States of the federation where executive elections are held off-cycle. As every attentive Nigerian knows, the tenure of legislators is tied to the legislative houses which is a fixed term of four years from the date the Assembly is inaugurated unlike the term of office of the executive which begins from the date they take the oath of office.

    Secondly, the report blames the pre-election cases arising from the conduct of primary elections by political parties on INEC. These are intra-party cases involving party members in which they join the Commission and seek for reliefs binding on it. As everyone knows, INEC does not conduct primaries for political parties.

    Thirdly, in pursuit of their right under the law, many litigants in Nigeria unfortunately file election petitions over the most improbable cases and later withdraw them or they are dismissed by the tribunals. If the report had taken time to analyse the outcome of the cases decided so far by the tribunals, it would have discovered that out of 1,196 petitions, 712 were dismissed and 179 withdrawn. This means that in 891 cases (74.4%), the tribunals found no merit in the petitions and affirmed the result of the elections conducted by INEC. It is surprising how the mere filing of petitions constitute a blot on the integrity of the recent elections conducted by INEC when in fact they constitute an integral part of the democratic process.

    Fourthly, the said report analysed the total number of petitions as if they were filed against the outcome of the election in 94% of all the elective positions without considering details of the cases. Multiple petitions were filed by candidates and political parties as petitioners in a single Constituency. For example, in one State in the South South geopolitical zone of the country, eight petitions were filed challenging the Governorship election out of which seven were dismissed and one withdrawn. Therefore, the number of election petitions filed in respect of all elective offices will certainly outnumber the total number of constituencies/elective offices. To spread them across the constituencies and proceed to calculate the percentage is to count some constituencies several times which is methodologically problematic and statistically illogical.

    Five, it is pertinent to note that the grounds for challenging the outcome of an election as provided in Section 134 of the Electoral Act, 2022 are not limited to the conduct of election by the Commission. An election may be questioned on the ground that the winner of the election was not qualified to contest the election by virtue of his academic qualifications, age etc. Many of the petitioners did not challenge the conduct of the elections by INEC but the eligibility of candidates or their nomination by political parties. Under the law, INEC has no power to screen candidates. Similarly, only the Courts can disqualify candidates.

    Six, a comparative analysis would have addressed the deliberate effort in the report to portray the 2023 General Election as regressive on account of litigation without empirical evidence. Over the last three electoral cycles, the number of election petitions may be rising but not the number of upturned elections. In 2015, 663 cases were filed at the tribunals, 87 (13.1%) were nullified and the Commission ordered to conduct re-run in some polling units or entire constituencies. In 2019, 807 petitions were filed but elections were only re-run in 30 (3.71%) consituencies (3 Senatorial Districts, 13 Federal Constituencies and 14 State Constituencies).

    While the 2023 post-election litigations are ongoing, all five petitions filed in respect of the Presidential election were dismissed while three are pending on appeal. As of Monday 16th October 2023, out of 82 Governorship election petitions, 72 (87.8%) were either dismissed or withdrawn by the petitioners. For Senatorial elections, 146 petitions were filed out of which 100 (68.5%) were dismissed or withdrawn. For the House of Representatives, 413 petitions were filed out of which 309 (74.81%) were dismissed or withdrawn while for State Houses of Assembly, 550 petitions were filed out of which 468 (82.4%) were dismissed or withdrawn.

    The Commission wishes to restate that it is inappropriate to solely assess the credibility of INEC or the conduct of the 2023 General Election on the number of petitions filed by litigants who, in any case, have the right to do so under the law.

    While we wish to restate our continuing partnership with the media, it is prudent to state that the pen should be used to strengthen rather than impugn the integrity of public institutions particularly where basic statistics demand that we should be circumspect.

    Sam Olumekun mni

    National Commissioner & Chairman,

    Information and Voter Education Committee

    Thursday 19th October 2023