- Cautions President, Vice over ‘destructive blackmail, cheap, misguided comments’
BY SEGUN ADEBAYO – The Labour Party (LP) Presidential Candidate in the February 25, 2023 election, Mr Peter Obi, says trampling upon or truncating the rule of law is what will lead to anarchy in Nigeria contrary to submissions made by President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima at the ongoing Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT).
Accusing the President, and Vice President of attempting to blackmail the PEPT, the former Anambra State Governor said; “A sentence in the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ address alarmed the Petitioners and millions of Nigerians.
“The 2nd and 3rd Respondents went too low and abandoned discretion when they claimed as follows: ‘Our submission is that the Petitioners are inviting anarchy by their ventilation of the issue of non-transmission of results electronically, by INEC’. This is a cheap, misguided, and destructive blackmail clearly intended to target the country’s judicialism and constitutionalism.”
Obi, who is the first petitioner in the case brought by the Labour Party before the Tribunal, stated the position while responding to the warning of anarchy, as well as a possible breakdown of law and order by Tinubu and Shettima, should the interpretation of Section 134 of the Nigerian Constitution goes against them in the election petition.
In a final written address filed before the court, Obi said it was alarming hearing claims by Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), that nullifying the outcome of the presidential election that held on February 25, would cause anarchy in the country.
The process he filed through his team of lawyers led by Dr Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), the LP flagbearer further, described the submission by President Tinubu and the APC, as “desperation taken too far”, adding; “It also aims at cannibalizing our democracy. It will also raise the issue of insecurity if the Petitioners emulate the bad example of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
“However, that will never happen. When has it become offensive to canvass a ground prescribed for the challenge of an election in section 134(1) (b) of the Electoral Act 2022?
“Desperation taken too far can be extremely dangerous. Let the 2nd and 3rd Respondents know that where the rule of law is trampled upon or truncated, anarchy reigns supreme!”
Section 134(b) states that a person can only be declared winner of the presidential election if, among others, “he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”
Obi’s final written address, filed alongside his party, further stated; “The legal team also noted that the careless and absurd statements of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents intend to raise the issue of insecurity if the Petitioners were to emulate the bad example of the 2nd-3rd Respondents but remarked that such will never happen because of the petitioner’s discipline and peaceful disposition and believe in the rule of law.
“Still underscoring the pointlessness and the supererogatory of the Respondent’s threat, Obi’s legal team wondered “When has it become offensive for Petitioners to canvass a ground prescribed for the challenge of an election in section 134(1)(b) of the Electoral Act 2022?
“The legal eggheads attributed the needless flare-up and effusion of the Respondents to desperation taken too far which can be extremely dangerous. Let the 2nd-3rd Respondents know that where the rule of law is trampled upon or truncated, anarchy reigns supreme!”, the LP candidate submitted
Also addressing the issue of Tinubu’s alleged involvement in a drug-related case, Obi and the LP, stated thus; “It is common knowledge that the 2nd Respondent was a subject of an order of forfeiture made by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483. The order of forfeiture against the 2nd Respondent was in terms, forfeiting the sum of USD $460, 000 against him, Bola Tinubu, which represents ‘proceeds of narcotics trafficking’ and ‘money laundry.
“The order for forfeiture against the 2nd Respondent was a fine within the meaning of Section 137(1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution for which a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of the President if he is under a sentence of fine for an offence involving dishonesty or fraud by whatever name called, imposed on him by a Court or Tribunal.
“The virus of the statutory and constitutional disqualification of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as candidates in presidential election tenders their purported return/declaration as the winners of the election, invalid, null and void and liable to be set aside”.
On the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s performance during the election, the LP Standard bearer accused the Electoral umpire of deliberately refusing to electronically transmit results of the presidential election from polling units to the IReV portal, using the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), and further questioned the Commission’s decision to ultimately upload blurred results to its portal.
