A appeal regarding the results of the February 25 presidential election was submitted by Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), and the All Progressives Congress (APC) has responded.
The APC responded to Obi’s appeal on Monday through Thomas Ojo, a member of the party’s legal staff.
Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) received 6,984,520 votes, while Peter Obi of the Liberal Party (LP) received 6,101,533. On March 1, 2023, Tinubu, who received 8,794,726 votes, was proclaimed the winner of the presidential election.
The PDP and LP, however, disagreed with the outcome. To contest Tinubu’s win, both parties submitted separate petitions to the tribunal.
READ ALSO: Pa Adebanjo On 2023 Elections: We”ll Pursue Outcome Of Presidential Poll To Supreme Court
Due to the payment of “a fine of $460,000 for an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking imposed by the United States District Court” on Tinubu in 1993, according to Obi’s petition, Tinubu “at the time of the (presidential) election was not qualified to contest the election.”
Additionally, it was claimed in the petition that Tinubu fell short of receiving the two-thirds majority of votes cast in the federal capital territory (FCT) for the presidential election.
The former governor of Anambra was vetted as one of the PDP’s presidential candidates in April 2022 and remained a PDP member until May 24, according to the APC. This indicates that the LP presidential candidate was not a legitimate member of the LP at the time of the election.
The APC said that because Atiku and the PDP were not joined, they were not required parties to be harmed by the reliefs sought, Obi’s petition was “improperly constituted.”
The APC further claimed that because LP “did not present a valid candidate for that election,” Obi “lacks the locus standi” to contest the election’s results. As a result, the APC claimed that the tribunal lacks the authority to consider the “pre-election complaints embedded” in Obi’s appeal.
“1st petitioner (referring to Peter Obi) participated and was cleared to contest the presidential election while being a member of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP):
“1st petitioner purportedly resigned his membership of Peoples Democratic Party on 24 May 2022 to purportedly join the 2nd Petitioner (Labour Party) on 27 May 2022.
“2nd petitioner conducted its presidential primary on 30th May 2022, which purportedly produced 1st petitioner as its candidate, which time contravened section 77(3) of the Electoral Act for him to contest the primary election as a member of the 2nd petitioner.
“The 1st petitioner was not a member of the 2nd Petitioner as at the time of his alleged sponsorship.
“Whereas, by the mandatory provisions of Section 77 (1) (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022, a political party shall maintain a register and shall make such register available to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not later than 30 (thirty) days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses and convention.
“All the presidential candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were screened on 29th April, 2022, an exercise which the 1st petitioner herein participated and cleared to contest while being a member of the party.
“The 1st petitioner herein resigned his membership of the PDP on Thursday 26th May, 2022 and joined the Labour Party the following day being 27th May, 2022.
“The 2nd petitioner herein conducted its presidential primary on 30th May, 2022, which produced the 1st petitioner as the candidate it intended to sponsor in the general election.
“By section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 2nd petitioner is mandated to have submitted its comprehensive register of members to the 1st respondent (referring to INEC) 30 days before its presidential primary. That is to say the said register of members must have been submitted to the 1st Respondent on or before 30th April, 2022.
“The 1st petitioner as at 30th April, 2022 was still a member of the PDP and his name was not and could not have been in the register of members submitted by the 2nd petitioner to 1st respondent.”
