Psady:
So the falcons played better during the game? That's an outright lie

Emir8:
Please ignore this. The name of the author is BOLANLE OLUBITAN. We are live in the Court. The supreme Court Justices are just arriving and nothing has been said by them. Please ignore this propaganda

APC is really afraid to put up this propaganda.

seanfer:


In your myopic reasoning APC can’t petition the election tribunal that Obi is not a qualified LP candidate, but Obi can meddle into APC nominations by saying someone is not qualified to run.

zoedew:

I agree. However, Peter Obi lost the moment and the movement when he went to the Tribunal to contest the Tinubu victory when it was clear that he was third place.If I were in his shoes it would be more important for me to tend the movement in a manner that will make larger than the Labour Party and transcending party politics. That way, in four years victory would be sure. But he blew it!

OKOATA:
So in your little mind a druglord will be president even though there will be court cases that might last 180 days. Why are you so funny. He has cases of age falsification, fake results etc and you think he will still be president? Keep believing your own lies to make yourself feel good.

OKOATA:
So na druglord won rule before?

Venerable612:


You know the Law!

Well said!

The preliminary objections are quite punchy - sammarily:
1. Peter Obi does not have locus to contest the election and bring the petition at all;

2. failure to add Atiku/PDP to the petition is a huge miss, as PO can’t be declared winner if at all he is successful without first discountenancing Atiku’s votes;

3. no pleadings on polling units disruptions individually; and

4. PO’s petition is fraught with pre-election matters - and the Tribunal itself does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Law is interesting! Let’s see how this place out and watch out for the Defence & potential cross petition.

OKOATA:
You know the truth but want to lie to yourself, as long as the court case isn't concluded there will be an interim. A druglord won't rule Nigeria.

zoedew:

Populism of the blind and headstrong slant have no place in the dispensation of Justice. Peter Obi was a member of LP within the 30 day period prior to the election. If he had stayed in PDP Tinubu would have found it near impossible to win.

CondenseMilk:
APC said that PO should go to court. Now that PO is in court you want the judge to dismiss the case?


Never!

Penguin2:
Lol

Finally they have come with their watery defense.

Now, let the trials begin.

Meanwhile, I join well meaning Nigerians to call for expedited hearing of the case. We should have a ruling before May 25th at the latest.

We can’t let Tinubu to be sworn in and hope that he’d let the courts be impartial.

We, sane Nigerians, say NO to a drug lord as our president.

Only criminals, thieves, idiots and vagabonds would want a drug lord as their president.

The All Progressives Congress (APC), on Monday, asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja to dismiss the petition filed by the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, against the emergence of Bola Tinubu as the president-elect in the 25 February election.

The APC, the 4th respondent, urged the PEPC to reject the petition in its notice of preliminary objection marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 and filed at PEPC’s Secretariat, Monday night, by Thomas Ojo, a member of the party’s legal team led by Lateef Fagbemi in Abuja.

The party asked the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial cost on the grounds that it lacked merit and was frivolous.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Obi, the 1st petitioner, and LP, the 2nd petitioner, had sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and APC as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.

The petitioners are seeking the nullification of the election victory of Messrs Tinubu and Shettima in the 25 February presidential poll.

NAN reports that while former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) came second with 6,984,520 votes in the election. Mr Obi came third with 6,101,533 votes.

Atiku and the PDP are also challenging the outcome of the poll.

In the petition marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 filed by Mr Obi and LP’s lead counsel, Livy Ozoukwu, they contended that Mr Tinubu “was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election.”

The petitioners claimed there was rigging in 11 states, adding that they would demonstrate this in the declaration of results based on the uploaded results.

Mr Obi and LP said INEC violated its own regulations when it announced the result despite the fact that at the time of the announcement, the totality of the polling unit results had yet to be fully scanned, uploaded and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.

Among other prayers, the petitioners urged the tribunal to “determine that, at the time of the presidential election held on February 25, 2023, the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) were not qualified to contest the election.

“That it be determined that all the votes recorded for the 2nd respondent in the election are wasted votes, owing to the non-qualification of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

“That it be determined that on the basis of the remaining votes (after discountenancing the votes credited to the 2nd respondent) the 1st petitioner (Obi) scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25 per cent of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the states of the federation and the FCT and satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

“That it be determined that the 2nd respondent (Tinubu), having failed to score one-quarter of the votes cast at the presidential election in the FCT was not entitled to be declared and returned as the winner of the presidential election held on Feb. 25.”

Responding, the APC asked the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that Mr Obi, the 1st petitioner, lacked requisite “locus standi” to institute the petition because he was not a member of LP at least 30 days to the party’s presidential primary to be validly sponsored by the party.

It said: “The 1st petitioner (Obi) was a member of PDP until May 24, 2022.

“1st petitioner was screened as a presidential aspirant of the PDP in Apni 2022.

“1st petitioner participated and was cleared to contest the presidential election while being a member of the PDP.

“1st petitioner purportedly resigned his membership of PDP on May 24, 2022 to purportedly join the 2nd petitioner (Labour Party) on May 27, 2022.

“2nd petitioner conducted its presidential primary on May 30, 2022 which purportedly produced 1st petitioner as its candidate, which time contravened Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act for him to contest the primary election as a member of the 2nd petitioner.”

The party argued that Obi was not a member of LP at the time of his alleged sponsorship.

The APC argued that “by the mandatory provisions of Section 77 (1) (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022, a political party shall maintain a register and shall make such register available to INEC not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses and convention.”

It stated further that all the PDP’s presidential candidates were screened on 29 April 29, an exercise Mr Obi participated in and cleared to contest while being a member of the party.

It argued that the petition was incompetent since Mr Obi’s name could not have been in LP’s register made available to INEC at the time he joined the party.

The APC equally argued that the petition was improperly constituted having failed to join Atiku Abubakar and PDP who were necessary parties to be affected by the reliefs sought

“By Paragraph 17 of the petition, the petitioners, on their own, stated that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar came second in the presidential election with 6,984,520 votes as against the petitioners who came third with 6,101,533 votes;

“At Paragraph 102 (ii) of the petition, the petitioners urged the tribunal to determine that 1st petitioner scored the majority of lawful votes without joining Alhaji Atiku Abubakar in the petition.

“For the tribunal to grant prayer (iii) of the petitioners, the tribunal must have set aside the scores and election of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar,

“Alhaji Atiku Abubakar must be heard before his votes can be discountenanced by the tribunal,” it said.

The party said the petition and the identified paragraphs were in breach of the mandatory provisions of Paragraph 4(1)(D) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.

According to APC, Paragraphs 60 — 77 of the petition are non-specific, vague and/or nebulous and thereby incompetent contrary to Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the Ist Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.

It said that the allegations of non-compliance must be made distinctly and proved on a polling unit basis but none was specified or provided in any of the paragraphs of the petition.

“Paragraphs 59-60 of the petition disclose no identity or particulars of scores and polling units supplied in 18,088 units mentioned therein,” it added.

The party, therefore, argued that the tribunal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain pre-election complaints embedded in the petition as presently constituted, among other arguments.

The APC urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial cost as the same was devoid of any merit and founded on frivolity.