.jpeg "The tribunal rejects Atiku's petition")
The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal has invalidated certain parts of the petition that the petitioner had relied upon in his efforts to advocate for the expulsion of Tinubu.
Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected and disregarded various materials, including witnesses' testimony, that were presented by the individual in order to substantiate his claims of irregularities and malpractices in relation to the presidential election held on February 25th.
In response to objections presented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, on behalf of Tinubu, Justice Moses Ugoh concluded that many aspects of Atiku's petition lack a solid foundation and are therefore incapable of withstanding scrutiny, rendering them incompetent.
Similar to the destiny that transpired to his counterpart inside the Labour Party, Peter Obi, the court has determined that Atiku failed to furnish numerous essential information necessary to substantiate his petition.
One of the criticisms directed towards Atiku was his alleged failure and carelessness in providing specific details regarding incidents like as the locations where ballot boxes were seized, the methods employed to manipulate the BVAS machine, and the specific polling booths where suspected malpractices occurred.
The petitioner, who asserted that they had obtained a majority of valid votes, was criticized for not providing a precise figure of the total number of valid votes they purportedly received.
In his plea to the Tribunal, Atiku contended that Tinubu did not secure a majority of legitimate votes. However, Atiku failed to disclose the specific details of the supposed lawful votes that were allegedly not accounted for.
In a same vein, the Tribunal noted that the ex-Vice President levied serious accusations against Yahaya Bello, the Governor of Kogi State, and Friday Adejoh, the Chairman of Olamaboro Local Government in Kogi. However, the petitioner failed to include them as respondents in the legal complaint.
In the case at hand, Justice Ugoh rendered a verdict stating that the petitioner's failure to include the Governor, who was implicated in election fraud, as a party to the proceedings was detrimental to the petition. This omission resulted in the Governor being deprived of the opportunity to exercise his legal right to defend himself.
The Tribunal ruled against the petitioner's assertions of widespread over voting throughout Nigeria, stating that such claims are in violation of the law due to the absence of particular locations where the alleged over voting occurred.
The petition filed by Atiku was criticized for its unauthorized introduction of several facts and charges, which took the respondents off guard. This technique was deemed unfair and shown a shrewdness that bordered on cunning.
Atiku has been accused of introducing erroneous information, including charges of criminal conviction, certificate fraud, and dual citizenship of Guinea against Tinubu, which were not appropriately presented through the formal process of filing a petition.
Justice Stephen Jonah Adah, in his ruling on objections raised against the petition, excluded a number of documents submitted by Atiku on the basis that these exhibits were produced while the petition was still pending.
Moreover, the testimonies provided by many crucial witnesses in support of Atiku were removed from the Court's official records due to their submission in a manner that does not conform to legal procedures.
The Tribunal determined that the PDP's presidential candidate utilized an improper method in constructing the petition, resulting in certain parts of the petition being susceptible to dismissal due to lack of merit.