Peter Obi petition against Tinubu incompetent, defective beyond repair – Tribunal
The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on Wednesday in Abuja ruled that the petition of the Labour Party’s presidential candidate, Peter Gregory Obi was greatly incompetent and defective beyond repairs.
The Tribunal in a ruling on several objections against the petition struck out several paragraphs of the petition for being vague, incompetent, inconsistent, nebulous and self contradictory.
In the ruling delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, Obi’s petition was said to have raised several general allegations of malpractices, irregularities, corruption without being specific as required by law.
The Tribunal held that while Obi claimed to have scored the highest number of lawful votes in the February 25 presidential election, he failed completely to state or specify the number of the lawful votes he claimed to have won.
Justice Mohammed said to worsen the situation, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate pleaded report of forensic experts but failed to file the report along with the petition or serve same on the respondents in the petition.
Besides, Justice Mohammed said Obi’s claim that his votes were suppressed in favour of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, APC, was vague because he failed to give out any figure of votes to establish the claim.
The Tribunal also held that Obi’s allegations that votes credited to Tinubu were inflated was untenable because he never mentioned the number of the votes dashed to Tinubu.
On the allegations of corrupt practices, Justice Mohammed stated that it is not every allegation of corruption that is regarded as corrupt practices, adding that averments in a pleading must be specific and not general as done by Obi.
“The Law is very clear that where someone alleged irregularities in a particular polling unit, as in the instant petition, such a person must prove the particular irregularities in that poling unit for him to succeed in his petition,” it held.
The Tribunal also held that Obi did not prove the particular polling units where elections did not take place and that he also failed to specify particulars of polling units where the complainants of irregularities were alleged