BY Ahmad Sahabi
Wole Olanipekun, counsel to President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima, has asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to dismiss the petition of Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP).
Olanipekun in his final written address against the petition of Obi and LP, described the arguments and testimonies of their witnesses as “frivolous, bogus and based on hearsay”.
On March 1, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) winner of the 2023 presidential election.
Tinubu secured a total of 8,794,726 votes.
Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had the second-highest figure with 6,984,520 votes, while Peter Obi of LP was next with 6,101,533 votes.
On March 20, Obi and LP filed a petition before the court, seeking nullification of the poll on grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022.
Olanipekun in his final written address dated July 14 asked the tribunal to bar Obi from contesting in another election if the court voids the February 25 poll.
He said Obi’s name was not in the Labour Party membership register when he contested the election, noting that Obi was still part of the PDP.
“Obi is constitutionally barred from participating in any election, in the very unlikely event that the election of 25th February 2023 is voided, as the only candidates constitutionally prescribed to contest any subsequent election shall be Tinubu and the candidate of the PDP, Atiku Abubakar who came second, by scoring the next majority of votes in the highest number of States (19 States), to the 1st petitioner’s 16 States, and also coming second by plurality of votes, having scored 6,984,520, far and above 1st petitioner’s 6,101,533 votes,” Olanipekun said.
Furthermore, he said the presentation of the petition itself and the evidence presented glaringly shows it is a crass abuse of the court process.
“Based on the arguments and submissions contained in this address, we urge this Honourable court to dismiss this petition as totally lacking in merit, substance and bona fide,” he said.
“It has been glaringly shown and demonstrated by the presentation of the petition itself and the evidence presented by the petitioners, including the evidence of PW12, that the petition itself is not only frivolous but also amounts to a crass abuse of the process of the court.”
In his conclusion, Olanipekun further referenced a pronouncement of the supreme court in a case between Elias and Omo-Bare, (1982) where Udo Udoma, a justice of the supreme court said: “If there was ever any case completely starved of evidence this is certainly one. This case clearly cries to high heavens in vain to be fed with relevant and admissible evidence. The appellant woefully failed to realise that judges do not act like the oracles of life, which is often engaged in crystal gazing and thereafter would proclaim a new Oba in succession to a deceased Oba. Judges cannot perform miracles in the handling of civil claims, and at least of all manufacture evidence for the purpose of assisting a plaintiff win his case.”
This website uses cookies.