In the Peter Obi v. Tinubu petition, a group claims a miscarriage of justice, according to the PEPC ruling.

The verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) in the petition filed by Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), against the declaration of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the 2023 presidential election has been criticized by the Coalition for Protection of Democracy (COPDEM), a pro-democracy group.

The Committee of Public Defenders and Human Rights (COPDEM), in an official statement issued by its spokesperson, Garba Danjuma, characterized the ruling of the five-member panel as an instance of judicial error.

The inquiry arises as to how a court may assert that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is not legally bound to transmit results electronically. It is suggested that the stance taken by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) on this matter should be contested before the Supreme Court.

The stance taken by PEPT, asserting that INEC is not legally bound to send results electronically, indicates a potential regression to a period characterized by fraudulent collation practices and unrestrained impunity.

It could be acknowledged that a more valid perspective might be that while there is an obligation to transmit results electronically, the Petitioners have not proven that the failure to do so had a significant impact on the outcome of the election in this particular case.

The group emphasized that the verdict regarding the electronic transmission of results suggests that the various measures and safeguards against electoral fraud outlined in the 2022 Electoral Act have been arbitrarily disregarded and rendered obsolete.

COPDEM expressed surprise at the fact that, despite the extensive irregularities observed in the presidential election as documented in the European Union's critical report, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) chose to disregard the evidence and proceeded with their judgment.

Consequently, the organization has revealed its intention to thoroughly analyze the court's decision and prepare a comprehensive argument that will have significant weight inside the legal system.