Why Atiku’s Witnesses Failed To Prove Electoral Fraud Against Tinubu – INEC Tells Tribunal
NIGERIA’s electoral commission, INEC, has urged Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja to dismiss Atiku Abubakar’s challenging the outcome of the 25 February election.
The commission said the 27 witnesses he called to prove his petition fell far short 100 he proposed to call.
Atiku, the presidential flagbearer of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the disputed poll, is challenging the victory of President Bola Tinubu.
INEC had on 1 March declared Mr Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) election winner.
One of Atiku’s major issues with the election centred around INEC’s alleged manipulation of votes in favour of Mr Tinubu.
He alleged that the electoral umpire allowed a third-party device to hijack its electronic Results Viewing (IReV) portal during the presidential election, creating a loophole for Mr Tinubu to manipulate poll results.
Atiku, the 1st runner-up at the poll, proposed during the prehearing session to call 100 witnesses to prove allegations of electoral malpractices and fraud against INEC and Mr Tinubu.
However, he presented 27 witnesses who comprised electoral officers and experts to substantiate his claims.
INEC had blamed its inability to upload photographic copies of polling units’ results of the Presidential election on its IReV portal on technical glitches.
In its final written address in response to Atiku’s allegations of electoral fraud, INEC, through its lead counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud, told the court that Atiku called only 24 witnesses from over 176,000 polling stations.
Mahmoud, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that 24 witnesses were insufficient to establish electoral malpractices in the 176,000 polling units across Nigeria where the presidential election was held last February.
“By law, the petitioners (Atiku and PDP) must prove through credible evidence from the 176,000 polling units that the non-use of the BVAS device to transmit the results real-time affected the outcome of the (presidential) election,” Mr Mahmoud argued.
The lawyer further contended that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines, which Atiku alleged were not functioning properly in the 176,000 polling units in Nigeria during the polls, were not produced by the PDP candidate in support of his case.
He said all of Atiku’s witnesses testified before the five-member panel of the court that the BVAS device functioned adequately except for the uploading of images of the presidential election from the polling stations, which INEC argued did not detract from the election’s “integrity and credibility.”
Responding to Atiku’s allegations of manipulation of ballots, BVAS, intimidation and harassment of voters and massive thumb printing of ballot papers, amongst others, the commission said the allegations were criminal in nature.
“We submit that these allegations as contained in the petition are criminal in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Alleged manipulations in Sokoto, Kano, Kogi, Borno, Lagos and Rivers
The electoral commission contended that Atiku and the PDP failed to prove results cancellation in 241 polling stations in Sokoto State during the presidential election.
It said Atiku’s reliance on Dino Melaye, PDP’s national coordinator for the presidential election, was fatal.
In his testimony before the court, Mr Melaye, PDP’s candidate for the forthcoming 11 November Kogi State governorship election, said there was substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act in INEC’s conduct of the polls.
But the commission, in its address, urged the court to discountenance Mr Melaye’s testimony, arguing that “he operated from” PDP’s situation room in Abuja and cannot give an accurate account of what transpired on election day across Kogi and other parts of the country.
In Kano State, INEC said the petitioners failed to prove how electoral officers’ inability to properly fill out polling units’ booklets robbed Atiku of votes cast during the polls.
“The petitioners’ failure to bring before this court the affected forms from the 44 local government areas in Kano State is that this court is being urged to speculate on the allegation of improper filling of electoral documents used in the election,” the INEC’s final written address read partly.
It will be recalled that Rabiu Kwankwaso, the presidential candidate of the New Nigerian Peoples Party (NNPP), won the election in Kano overwhelmingly.
Mr Kwankwaso, a former governor of Kano, came fourth in the race, scoring over a million votes.
In Borno, INEC pointed out that Atiku did not mention at what stage of the electoral process it “imputed wrong results” for him. It said the petitioners failed to prove allegations of corrupt practices in Borno State during the election.
Atiku and the PDP had alleged issues of voter intimidation and harassment in Lagos, Mr Tinubu’s home state.
But the commission argued that the petitioners’ witnesses, in their evidence-in-chief, never mentioned names of high-profile persons who threatened to hurt voters in Lagos for refusing to vote for Mr Tinubu.
“Despite these weighty allegations in their pleadings, the petitioners failed to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of these assertions,” Mahmoud wrote in the INEC’s final address.
The INEC’s lawyer further argued that “the mere tendering of” results of the presidential election of some of the states was not sufficient to establish the complaint made out by the petitioners.
Mr Mahmoud told the court that Atiku “failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on him to displace the presumption of the regularity of the election.”
“They failed to prove that the 2nd respondent (Mr Tinubu) was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election.
“They failed to prove that scoring 25 per cent of the votes cast at the FCT is a condition precedent to winning the presidential election under the constitution.
” The 1st respondent (INEC)’s case was unchallenged, ” Mr Mahmoud said, urging the court to dismiss Atiku’s suit and affirm Mr Tinubu’s victory.
Mr Obi and his party, the Labour Party, are expected also to file and serve their response to the individual written addresses of the INEC, Mr Tinubu and the APC.
A date will then be fixed by a five-person panel of the court headed by Haruna Tsammani for closing arguments of parties to the suit.
About The Author
