READ ALSO: Election Petition Court: Obi, Labour Party to present 50 witnesses
The legal team of President Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima also closed defence in the petition filed by Obi after calling one witness.
While adopting their final written address, Atiku and the PDP, through their team of lawyers, led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, urged the court to declare that President Tinubu was not qualified to contest the presidential poll that held on February 25.
They prayed the court to nullify the entire outcome of the presidential election and order a re-run or fresh contest.
It’s now official:
The Court of Appeal has scheduled Wednesday September 6, 2023, to deliver judgment on the much awaited petition filed by our great Party, the @OfficialPDPNig and our Presidential Candidate in the February 25, 2023 Election, @atiku concerning the fraudulent… pic.twitter.com/rHhZzHPuOm— Official PDP Nigeria (@OfficialPDPNig) September 4, 2023
Atiku and his party alleged that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), despite receiving over N355billion for the conduct of the election, deliberately by-passed all the technological innovations it introduced for the purpose of the 2023 general elections.
They contended that the INEC acted in breach of the amended Electoral Act, when it refused to electronically transmit results of the presidential election.
“On the issue of transmission of election results based on new provisions in the Electoral Act, we are all in agreement, including the INEC, that there is a new regime in election management.
“The essence of the innovation was to enhance transparency in the collation of results, which was an area that we usually had problems and not the actual election, and secondly, to enhance the integrity of result declared.
“We agree that the INEC had an option, and we brought a video evidence by the INEC chairman showing that the electoral body indeed chose an option.
“It is our contention, and it is here in evidence that witnesses admitted that results from the National Assembly election were transmitted, but that of the presidential election was not.
“My lords, in a situation like this, the burden shifts on the INEC to explain. It is not on the petitioner to explain why there was such technical glitch.
“We urge this court to hold that there was a deliberate non-compliance. The substantiality of the non-compliance lies on the national spread of the non-transmission of results. It was national and not limited to certain polling units,” Uche added.
While adopting his own final brief of argument, Obi and the Labour Party, through their lawyer, Mr Livy Uzoukwu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that there was no glitch during the election but an intentional act to sabotage the outcome of the polls.
Uzoukwu, SAN, while calling for the removal of President Tinubu, insisted that “an election, where over 18,088 blurred results were uploaded to INEC’s IReV portal, is certainly a flawed election.”
Meanwhile, in the two cases, the INEC, President Tinubu, Vice-President Shettima and the All Progressives Congress (APC), through their respective lawyers, prayed the court to dismiss the petitions as grossly lacking in merit.
The INEC’s legal team, led by Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, maintained that the presidential election was not only validly conducted but was done in substantial compliance with all the relevant laws.
The electoral body argued that the petitioners misconstrued and totally misunderstood the purpose of the technology it introduced for the 2023 general elections.
It told the court that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) device was introduced for the authentication and verification of voters and for transmission of results from the polling units to the INEC Result-Viewing (IReV) portal.
The INEC’s lawyer said there was evidence to show that the commission went to great length to ensure that the technology functioned as designed.
“The applications used on the BVAS device were developed in-house and tested again and again, both for performance and reliability.
“The intention of the 1st respondent to conduct a world-class election is clear from the evidence that was placed before this court,” he insisted.
The INEC told the court that it was illogical for the petitioners to claim that a candidate must secure 25 per cent votes in the federal capital territory (FCT) to be declared winner of a presidential election.
It argued that such argument would run contrary to the spirit and intendment of the drafters of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, adding that the FCT ought to be regarded as the 37th State of the federation that is without a special status during elections.
Similarly, President Tinubu and VP Shettima, while adopting their written address, urged the court to dismiss all the petitions.
Addressing the court through their team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, the duo, said it would not be in public interest for the court to set aside the decision of the electorates that led to their victory at the polls.
Arguing that the petitioners completely failed to discharge the burden of proof that was required of them by the law, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, further accused both Atiku and Obi of merely dumping documents before the court.
NAN
