SaharaReporters had reported earlier that PDP's Atiku has officially filed his petition before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to challenge APC's Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election.
Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party presidential candidate, has raised four grounds upon which he is challenging the declaration of All Progressives Congress President-elect Bola Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election.
SaharaReporters had reported earlier that PDP's Atiku has officially filed his petition before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to challenge APC's Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election.
According to the court document dated March 20, 2023, filed before the Presidential Election Petition Court, sitting in Abuja, obtained by SaharaReporters, Atiku and PDP joined the Independent National Electoral Commission, Tinubu and APC as the Respondents in the suit.
INEC on March 1, 2023, announced Bola Tinubu as the winner of the election after which it declared him ‘President-elect’.
According to INEC results declaration, Tinubu of APC party scored 8,794, 726 votes to defeat the PDP's Atiku who came second with 6,984, 520 votes while Peter Obi of LP Party scored 6,101, 533 votes to come third.
In the petition marked No: PEPC/A/05/2023, Atiku and his party are asking the tribunal to void the election of Tinubu who is the second respondent in the petition, on the ground of corrupt practices, non-compliance to the Electoral Act and the Election guidelines.
Atiku cited suppression of votes, manipulation of the ballots and ballot boxes, and manipulation of BVAS (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System) machines among others.
Atiku told the tribunal to void the election, saying: "The election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
"The election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices.
"The 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the Election.
"The 2nd Respondent was at the time of the Election not qualified to contest the Election."
On ground three, Atiku insisted that Tinubu was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast. He said the results of the election as announced by INEC who is the 1st Respondent and especially the votes allocated to the 2nd Respondent do not represent the lawful valid votes cast at the election.
He insisted that lawful votes cast at the election were deliberately and massively deducted from the 1st Respondent (INEC) “in order to return the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu)”.
The facts of the petition are as stated: “GROUND ONE: THE ELECTION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS INVALID BY REASON OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2022.
"Failure by the 1st Respondent to electronically transmit the election results:
"The Petitioners aver that the Election was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, and other extant laws and that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the Election, in that the 2nd Respondent ought not to have been declared or returned as the winner of the election.
"The Petitioners state that the Election was not conducted in compliance with the provisions of Sections 47(2) & (3), 60(1), (2) & (5), 64(4)(a) & (b), 64(5), (6), (7) & (8), 71 and 73 of the Electoral Act, Paragraphs 3.3.0 and 3.4.0 of the 1st Respondent's published Manual for Election Officials 2023 ("INEC Manual" or "Manual"), and Paragraphs 19, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43 47 48 50 and 67 of the 1 Respondent's published Regulations and guidelines for the conduct of election 2023 (INEC regulations or Regulations and guidelines").
"The Petitioners state that several months and weeks leading to the Election, the 1st Respondent through its Chairman Mahmood Yakubu, had repeatedly assured the general public that the February 2023 general election would be the best election ever, with the guaranteed use of the Bi-Modal Voters' Accreditation System (BVAS) and real-time and direct uploading of the polling unit results to INEC's electronic collation system and Results Viewing Portal (IReV") which were technological innovations In the electoral system that would ensure the transparency of the elections against all forms of manipulation.
"The Petitioners state that contrary to the undertakings, representations and assurances made by the 1st Respondent, the 1st Respondent on the 1st day of March 2023 to wrongly return the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the Election when the outcome (herein being challenged) and the results from the polling units including the total number of accredited voters in the respective polling units were yet to be transmitted to the 1st Respondent's Electronic Collation System and the 1st Respondent's Result Viewing Portal (IReV) as stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2022 and the INEC Guidelines and Manuals and expressly guaranteed to the electorate by the 1st Respondent.
"The Petitioners aver that the 1st Respondent had received generous funding from the Federal Government of Nigeria, having informed the public that the 2023 election cost the country the sum of N355 billion. The 1st Respondent had submitted a budget of N305 billion, out of which a whopping sum of N117 billion was earmarked for the procurement of electronic accreditation and transmission devices, including the Bi-Modal Voters' Accreditation System (BVAS) a new voter enrolment and voter accreditation device designed to combine the functions of the Direct Data Capture Machine, the Z-Pad, the Smart Card Reader and the portal, IReV a world-wide web portal designed for real time viewing of election results uploaded from polling units.
"The 1st Respondent and its Chairman irrevocably committed the 1st Respondent to the deployment and use of the BVAS technology in both accreditation and transmission of the accreditation data and election results from the polling units to the electronic collation system and IReV Portal. Meanwhile, the 1st Respondent had touted the BVAS machine as the election ‘game changer.’”
Atiku in the 223-page petition further said, "That it may be determined that the 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the Election and therefore the declaration and return of the 2nd Respondent by the 1 Respondent as the winner of the Presidential Election conducted on the 25 day of February, 2023 is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, undue, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
"That it may be determined that the return of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent was wrongful, unlawful, undue, null and void having not satisfied the requirements of the Electoral Act 2022 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which mandatorily requires the 2nd Respondent to score not less than one quarter (25%) of the lawful votes cast at the Election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
"That it may be determined that the 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election.
"That it may be determined that the 1st Petitioner having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the Presidential election of Saturday, 25th February 2023, be returned as the winner of the said election and be sworn in as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
"In The Alternative: (e). An Order directing the 1 Respondent to conduct a second election (run-off) between the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent.
"In The Further Alternative: (1). That the election to the office of the President of Nigeria held on 25th February 2023 be nullified and a fresh election (re-run) ordered.
"Any such further relief(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the interest of justice."