“The Presidential Elections Petitions Tribunal’s decision, which upheld President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 presidential election, carries enduring lessons for litigants, lawyers, and politicians. While the verdict itself may be in the past, its impact and memory persist.
Tinubu, representing the All Progressives Congress, secured 8.7 million votes, defeating the Peoples Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and his Labour Party counterpart, Peter Obi, who received 6.9 million and 6.1 million votes, respectively.
In a 12-hour judgment delivered by a five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, the petitions of Atiku and Obi were nullified. However, both Atiku and Obi have expressed their disagreement with the verdict and their intention to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
This judgment has sparked intense debates and diverse reactions among Nigerians, especially on social media. People continue to express their emotions regarding the court’s decision, with some social media users resorting to posting personal information about the five justices and using derogatory language.
Certainly, Peter Obi’s electoral journey garnered him a substantial following, and those supporters may remain skeptical of the Supreme Court’s decision if it doesn’t align with their expectations.”
Leading up to the judgment, it was fascinating to witness the various explanations put forth by the justices before reaching their decision. For instance, Justice Bolaji-Yusuf didn’t mince words when she highlighted the shortcomings in the petitioners’ cases, emphasizing that it wasn’t the court’s role to gather evidence on their behalf. She expressed, “They failed to present credible evidence before this court. Did they expect the court to collect evidence from the streets or market? Or be swayed by threats on social media? That’s not how the court operates.”
On the other hand, Justice Ugo dismissed the petitioners’ assertion that the Independent National Electoral Commission closed or blocked its result viewing portal to manipulate the election results in favor of the second respondent, Tinubu. An amused Ugo questioned whether such an allegation in the election petitions was even believable, expressing disappointment that neither set of petitioners proved that the presidential election results declared on February 25, 2023, by the 1st respondent were incorrect.
Justice Mohammed shared a similar perspective, arguing that the petitioners failed to specify the number of votes affected and the number of disenfranchised individuals, as alleged by Atiku and Obi in their petitions. He found it hard to believe that a petitioner could claim widespread rigging across 176,000 polling units, over 8,000 wards, 774 local government areas, 36 states, and the Federal Capital Territory without pinpointing where these alleged irregularities occurred.
One aspect that surprised many political analysts and legal observers was the status of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and the disputed requirement that the election winner must secure 25 percent support in the nation’s capital. Justice Tsammani clarified that the FCT was not superior to a state, and its electorate was not more special than voters in other parts of the country. He unequivocally stated, “Nothing more than that; the FCT is not superior to a state.”
Despite what some analysts viewed as a significant contribution to the nation’s jurisprudence, the camps of Atiku and Obi remained dissatisfied with the tribunal’s verdict, believing that justice had not been served.
Dele Momodu, the Director of Strategic Communications for the Atiku/Okowa Presidential Campaign Council, accused the court of “brazenly and deliberately” distorting the Constitution. Nonetheless, he expressed confidence that those with a sense of justice would look beyond the judgment, with the belief that “Nigeria shall be free.”
In the Labour Party’s camp, Aisha Yesufu, a social rights activist and ally of Obi, vowed never to consider Tinubu as her president.
Political analysts and legal experts, however, pointed out that the diverse reactions to the verdict were to be expected. Dr. Alada Mohammed, a political scientist at the University of Ilorin, noted that the sentiments expressed by various Nigerians were typical. He emphasized that the justices based their decision solely on the presented facts.
Mohammed stated, “Our Nigerian judiciary, as one fundamental issue, does not generate evidence independently. It relies on the evidence provided by the petitioner(s). Just as the judges mentioned, they won’t search for evidence on anyone’s behalf. The outcome might differ in a different context. Furthermore, you can’t build a case on hearsay or rumors; there must be substantial evidence, even if it’s not in black and white. This underscores the importance of thoroughly preparing your case when the burden of proof rests on you. It’s a lesson for Nigerians.”
He added, “Presidential election result disputes have always existed. However, the 2023 presidential election case is unique because we have two prominent candidates who vigorously petitioned the judiciary to nullify the election. This is significant given our electoral process.”
To improve the electoral process, Mohammed called for amendments to the Electoral Act and the election guidelines.
Rotimi Jacobs, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, described the judgment as fair and expressed concern about how some mischievous individuals on social media ridiculed the justices shortly after the verdict.
“I believe the media frenzy, excessive publicity, and differing opinions from Nigerians, particularly politicians, on a matter before the court are detrimental to our democracy,” he said. “This judgment has been delivered and is binding on everyone. People should be cautious about undermining the judiciary. It’s disheartening to see someone claim on social media that (Babatunde) Fashola was writing the tribunal’s judgment. What kind of nonsense is this? Why should we sink to this level as a society? It’s not healthy.”
He also criticized the practice of posting the justices’ pictures on social media and videos showing pastors praying against them in churches. Jacobs called for restraint and highlighted that some issues presented before the tribunal had already been settled by the court in previous election petition cases, such as the matter of double nomination.
Jacobs emphasized the importance of considering national interest over political interests and encouraged people to view themselves as Nigerians first, rather than identifying solely with their ethnic backgrounds. He stated that the judgment was sound, and Atiku and Obi had the right to appeal if they were dissatisfied.
In contrast, Dr. Monday Ubani, a human rights lawyer and Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law, disagreed with the judgment. He believed there were gray areas that should serve as grounds for appeal, particularly the removal of witness statements.
Ubani also expressed concerns about the alleged failure of the tribunal to address INEC’s failure to electronically transmit election results, despite significant spending on these innovations. He questioned the reasons behind the large expenditures if the court did not recognize these innovations as legally binding.
