…Obi and LP did not have agents in all the polling units
,,,, Obi failure to plead specific particulars and figures as to how the alleged non-compliance by INEC

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has argued the reliefs being sought in the petition by the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, cannot be granted by the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
INEC also contended the petition by Obi and LP is “grossly incompetent, abusive, vague, nebulous, generic, general, non-specific, ambiguous, equivocal, hypothetical and academic.”

The petitioners are seeking, among others, the nullification of the the outcome of victory of the February 25 presidential election.

They are of the view that Tinubu “was not duly elected by the majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election.”

Obi and the LP, who claimed that there was rigging in 11 States, alleged that INEC violated its own regulations when it announced the results when the totality of the polling unit results was yet to be fully scanned, uploaded and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.

Listed as respondents in the petition are INEC, Bola Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

But in its response, INEC argued that the grounds on which the petition was based were defective, having regard to the vague and imprecise averments supporting the said grounds.

INEC noted that, in relation to their claim of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and corrupt practices, the petitioners failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action by their failure to plead specific particulars and figures as to how the alleged non-compliance, which they claimed substantially affected the results of the election.

It argued that the petitioners’ ground, hinged on their claim that Tinubu was not elected by majority of lawful votes cast, is defective owing to their failure to plead the alleged unlawful votes to be deducted and/or lawful votes to be credited to the petitioners.

INEC argued that the petitioners’ prayer for the tribunal to declare that Obi scored majority of lawful votes cast at the election and be declared winner was equally defective in view of the petitioners’ “failure to join necessary parties and for lack of requisite particulars and pleading to support same.”

INEC contended that it was impossible for the tribunal to return as the winner of the election having not polled the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and /or secured one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all states in the federation and the FCT.

It noted that the law required all political parties, intending to sponsor candidates in the election, to submit lists of their agents and were expected to observe the election process at their units, sign and collect result sheets on behalf of their political parties at the close of polls.

INEC added that some of the political party agents whose names were on the list submitted to it were however absent at their polling units while some others, who were present, neglected to participate in the election process.

The electoral umpire further stated that the petitioners (Obi and LP) did not have agents in all the polling units across country because they only submitted a list of 134, 874 polling agents, which is 41, 972 short of the 176, 846 polling units nationwide.

It added that the petitioners were not represented in many or some of the polling units across the country.

As against the petitioners’ contention, INEC insisted that Tinubu and Shettima were duly declared and returned elected and issued Certificates of Return, having fulfilled the requirements of the constitution to be declared winners and returned.

It added that the Shettma was duly nominated and sponsored to contest the election as the vice presidential candidate.

INEC prayed the court to dismiss the petition by Obi and LP.