The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Abubakar Atiku, have vowed to prove at the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal sitting at the Appeal Court, Abuja, that President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) did not win in the Feb. 23 presidential election.
In the petition they filed to contest the declaration of Buhari by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) winner of the election, the petitioners provided figures as proof that Atiku beat Buhari with over 1m votes.
Respondents to the petition are INEC, Buhari and APC as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively.
According to the petitioners, from figures collated from their agents in all the polling units, ward collation centres, local government area collation centres, and the state collation centres, in all the states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory as well as at the national collation centre,
Atiku scored a total votes of 18, 356, 732 as against Buhari’s 16, 741, 530.
These figures, the petitioners claimed, are available in the server of INEC and are at variance with those declared by the electoral umpire, which credited Atiku with 11, 262, 430 votes, while Buhari got 15, 191, 847 to emerge the winner.
Basing their argument on five grounds, the petitioners contended that the 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election; and that from the data on each state of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in the 1st Respondent’s server, the 1st Petitioner, as opposed to the 2nd Respondent, scored majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
According to the petitioners on ground 1: “Smart Card Readers deployed by the 1st Respondent, in addition to accreditation, equally transmitted electronically the results of voting from polling units directly to the server of the 1st Respondent. The Presiding Officers of the 1st Respondent directly inputted the results from the polling units at the end of voting and transmitted directly to the server, in addition to manually taking the Form EC8As to the Wards for collation. The 1st Respondent is hereby given notice to produce the records of results from each polling unit uploaded and transmitted electronically by officials of the 1st Respondent through smart card readers to the 1st Respondent’s Servers.
“The Petitioners plead and rely on the 1st Respondent’s Manual Technologies 2019, and notice is hereby given to the 1st Respondent to produce same at the trial. The 1st Respondent’s agents at the polling units used the Smart Card Reader for electronic collation and transmission of results. The Petitioners plead and shall rely on and play at the trial, the video demonstration by the 1st Respondent of the deployment of Smart Card Reader for authentication of accreditation and for transmission of data.
“The Petitioners hereby plead and rely upon the extract of data as contained on the 1st Respondent’s servers as at 25th February 2019, notice to produce whereof is hereby given to the 1st Respondent. The Petitioners also will rely on the data on the 1st Respondent’s central server between 25th February 2019 and 8th March 2019 and hereby also give notice to produce same before this Honourable Court.
“The Petitioners hereby plead the electronic data on the servers of the 1st Respondent and shall at the trial give evidence of the source of the data analysis and data material, including the website: www.factsdontlieng.com.
The petitioners stated further that whereas the actual number of voters accredited at the election was 35,098,162, the 1st respondent wrongly suppressed and/or reduced the number of accredited voters to 29,394,209 to the detriment of the petitioners.
They also claimed that INEC deliberately refused to adhere to “its Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2019 made pursuant to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) provided for the mandatory use of card readers for the said election.
“The 1st Respondent by its press release on smart card readers issued in February 2019 and signed by its National Commissioner, Barrister Festus Okoye, emphasised and reiterated that ‘The use of the Smart Card Reader is NOT ONLY MANDATORY but its deliberate non-use attracts the sanction of possible prosecution of erring officials in accordance with the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections.’
“This is in addition to the voiding of any result emanating from such units or areas as was done in the Presidential and National Assembly elections of February 23, 2019.”
The petitioners, therefore stated that the 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
“The election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices.
“The election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
“The 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election.
“The 2nd Respondent submitted to the 1st Respondent an affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election.”
Ground 2 of the petition cited non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which include, non holding of elections and cancellation of results.
On ground 3, Atiku and the PDP claimed that the Presidential election conducted by the 1st Respondent is invalid on account of corrupt practices.
On grounds 4 and 5, the petitioners said the 2nd Respondent was not qualified to contest the presidency because he gave false information .
The petitioners stated that the 2nd Respondent does not possess the educational qualification to contest the election to the office of the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“By Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), every political party shall not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election submit to the Commission in the prescribed form the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections.
” Further, by Section 31(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the list or information submitted by each candidate shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the candidate at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or Federal Capital Territory indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office. “
Felix Omohomhion, Abuja
