The Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja has dismissed the Labour Party’s 25% FCT votes claim stating that the FCT residents have no special privileges as the petitioners claimed.
Haruna Tsammani, the head of the five-member bench, made the pronouncement in his judgement on the petition filed by Mr Obi and his party to challenge the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The Court ruled that a presidential candidate does not need to score 25% of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, as the law states that for one to become President, he must score 25%, one-quarter, in one-third of 37 states in Nigeria, inclusive of the FCT.
Justice Tsammani also said, as regards the 25% votes in the FCT, that the interpretation of section 134 (2) a & b of the constitution by the labour party team of lawyers is completely “fallacious if not outrightly ludicrous.”
According to PEPC, the use of the word “and” in the Labour Party’s Peter Obi’s submission doesn’t suggest anything exceptional.
The court further notes that the FCT is the sole state mentioned in section 134 (2) a and b of the constitution, which exclusively refers to the 36 states of the federation.
Tsammani said, “The Federal Capital Territory Abuja is to be treated as one of those in the calculation of totals of the state of the federation such that if the candidate scores 25%- one-quarter of votes in two-thirds of 37 states of the federation, FCT Abuja inclusive, the presidential candidate should have been deemed to have been duly elected even if he fails to score 25% of the votes casted in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as the second respondent did.”
“In conclusion, I have found without any equivocation that in a presidential election, only one-quarter or 25% of total votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is not a separate pre-condition for a candidate to be duly elected under Section 134 of the constitution.”
On the testimonies and exhibits tendered by 10 out of the 13 witnesses presented by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, he rejected them.
Also read: Breaking: Tribunal strikes out suit seeking disqualification of Shettima
The judge said the witness statements on oath of the 10 witnesses, who were subpoenaed to testify in the case, were not competent and could not be recognised by the court.
This, the judge said, was because they were not filed along with the petition as of the close of the 21 days within which the petitioners must file their case.
Mr Tsammani, who was ruling on the objection of Mr Tinubu and other respondents to the petition, held that the witness statements on oath of the witnesses having been declared incompetent, the 10 witnesses were also not competent to testify in the case.
“They are therefore not the witnesses of this court,” Mr Tsammani ruled.
He said the petitioners were aware of the legal provision relating to the filing of witness statements on oath yet went ahead to present 10 witnesses without their witness statements on oath earlier filed with the petition.
Mr Tsammani said under section 285 of the Nigerian constitution, section 137(7) of the Electoral Act 2022, and other provisions, every witness statement on oath must be filed along with the petition.
He said that based on the Supreme Court authority, once the 21-day window for filing an election petition lapses, the content of the petition cannot be amended.
He said further that no additional statement on oath can be filed after the close of the window since the respondents would not have the opportunity to respond to it.
The court, therefore,. rejected the exhibits tendered by the affected 10 witnesses.
Mr Tsammani had said at the beginning of the judgement that Mr Obi called 13 witnesses who testified as PW1 to PW13.
Of the 13 witnesses, the judge said, only three are their witnesses whose statements on oath were filed along with the petition.
The remaining 10 witnesses were subpoenaed and their witness statements on oath were only filed after the hearing started.
Mr Tsammani, who earlier ruled on the preliminary motions filed by the respondents to the petition, noted that it was clear the APM’s petition was anchored on the non-qualification of Vice-President Shettima.
Mr Tsammani, who was ruling on the objection of Mr Tinubu and other respondents to the petition, held that the witness statements on oath of the witnesses having been declared incompetent, the 10 witnesses were also not competent to testify in the case.
“They are therefore not the witnesses of this court,” Mr Tsammani ruled.
He said the petitioners were aware of the legal provision relating to the filing of witness statements on oath yet went ahead to present 10 witnesses without their witness statements on oath earlier filed with the petition.
Mr Tsammani said under section 285 of the Nigerian constitution, section 137(7) of the Electoral Act 2022, and other provisions, every witness statement on oath must be filed along with the petition.
He said that based on the Supreme Court authority, once the 21-day window for filing an election petition lapses, the content of the petition cannot be amended.
He said further that no additional statement on oath can be filed after the close of the window since the respondents would not have the opportunity to respond to it.
The court, therefore, rejected the exhibits tendered by the affected 10 witnesses.
Mr Tsammani had said at the beginning of the judgement that Mr Obi called 13 witnesses who testified as PW1 to PW13.
Of the 13 witnesses, the judge said, only three are their witnesses whose statements on oath were filed along with the petition.
The remaining 10 witnesses were subpoenaed and their witness statements on oath were only filed after the hearing started.
