.jpeg "Peter Obi's petition against Tinubu is ineffective and unfixable, according to the tribunal")
The Tribunal, in its finding on many objections raised against the petition, deemed it necessary to strike out certain passages due to their lack of clarity, incompetence, inconsistency, ambiguity, and self-contradiction.
According to the judgement pronounced by Justice Abba Mohammed, the petition filed by Obi encompassed numerous broad charges of malpractices, irregularities, and corruption, lacking the necessary specificity as mandated by legal provisions.
The Tribunal determined that although Obi asserted that he obtained the greatest count of valid votes in the presidential election held on February 25, he did not provide any explicit or precise figures regarding the quantity of legitimate votes he purportedly secured.
Justice Mohammed noted that the Labour Party's presidential candidate exacerbated the problem by failing to include the report of forensic experts in the petition or provide a copy of the report to the respondents in the case.
Furthermore, Justice Mohammed asserted that Obi's allegation of vote suppression in favor of Bola Tinubu from the All Progressives Congress (APC) lacked specificity, since he did not provide any numerical data to substantiate his claim.
The Tribunal further determined that Obi's assertion about the inflation of votes awarded to Tinubu lacked credibility due to his failure to provide the exact number of votes allegedly misattributed to Tinubu.
Justice Mohammed emphasized that not all charges of corruption can be classified as corrupt practices. He further noted that when making accusations in a legal document, such as a pleading, it is crucial for the allegations to be specific rather than generic, as was the case with Obi's assertions.
The court emphasized that in order for the petitioner to prevail in their case, they must provide evidence of the specific irregularities reported in the particular polling unit, as required by the Law.
The Tribunal further determined that Obi failed to substantiate the specific voting units where elections did not occur, as well as neglected to provide specific details regarding the polling units where the complainants alleged irregularities.