Peter Obi did not submit any allegations of electoral irregularity to the Tribunal.
Peter Obi, the candidate for president of the Labour Party (LP), is awaiting a decision from the Presidential Election Tribunal on a case he submitted. Read Full Article
In the presidential election on February 25, 2023, President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) will go off against Obi.
One of the five judges on the court, Abba Mohammed, read the decision about the respondents’ initial objections to Obi’s petition.
Mohammed draws attention to the respondents’ argument that Mr. Obi’s petition only claimed widespread irregularities without specifying the specifics or the polling places involved.
– According to him, the petition claimed that false results were uploaded without identifying the impacted voting locations.
– He claims that the petition did not specify which voting units were involved in the alleged overvoting and rigging.
– According to Mohammed, the petitioners just presented generalized claims.
– The petitioners stated that they would depend on spreadsheets, inspection reports, and forensic analysis submitted with the petition throughout the trial and made general charges of violations.
He claims, however, that the petitioners’ promised materials were not delivered to the respondents together with the petition as promised.
Mohammed claims that Mr. Obi’s Labour Party and other parties involved in the case neglected to detail any instances of fraud, vote tampering, or other anomalies in their submissions.
– The court finds fault with the respondents’ argument disputing Mr. Obi’s membership of the labour party.
– Mohammed claims that no individual or organization has the right to enquire about a political party’s membership.
The court also disapproves of the respondents’ objection, which disapproved the petition filed by the Labour Party on the grounds that it did not support Atiku Abubakar, who finished second in the poll.
Mohammed asserts that a petitioner is not need to include a rival candidate who lost the election in his petition.
The judge ruled that a petitioner is only required to include as parties to his petition the person, political party, and commission that won the election.