The Supreme Court, yesterday said there was no conversation between Olukayode Ariwoola, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), and President Bola Tinubu regarding the outcome of the election petition tribunal.

Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, standard bearers of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP), are challenging the victory of Tinubu in the last election.

Abubakar and Obi recently submitted their final written addresses after closing their respective cases at the election tribunal.

The tribunal is yet to fix a date for judgment in the petitions.

However, Jackson Ude, a Twitter user, had claimed that the president spoke with the CJN over the outcome of the presidential election petition.

Ude alleged that the CJN told Tinubu to prepare for a rerun election.

Reacting to the allegation in a statement on Wednesday, Festus Akande, spokesperson of the Supreme Court, described the claim as “false”.

“It is imperative to state clearly that there is no iota of truth in the narrative, as there was no such telephone conversation between the CJN and anyone,” Akande said.

“Nigerians have been following the proceedings at the presidential election petition tribunal with admirable enthusiasm.

“So, it is advisable we all sustain the tempo and follow it up to the end, instead of relapsing into the realm of speculations and rumour peddling that will not do anyone any good.

“If this current trend of falsehood and mudslinging is sustained, our nation may not make the desired progress.

“The courts are statutorily established to serve the best interest of the masses and we are ever poised to do that to the best of our ability.

“We wish to plead with everyone to cooperate with the judiciary to serve the country to its full capacity, as no one will ever be favoured against the other in any dispute.

“The rule of law and supremacy of the Nigerian constitution will always be upheld and applied in every matter that comes before the courts; as the facts presented and the subsisting laws must be applied in determining the merit or otherwise of each matter.

“The public should rest assured that justice will be done to all matters pending in the various courts across the country, irrespective of who is involved.”

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has also denied the allegation by Ude.

Similarly, the All Progressives Congress (APC) has dismissed report of an alleged telephone conversation between the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola and President Bola Tinubu over the outcome of the presidential election petition currently before the court.

This is contained in a statement issued by Mr Felix Morka, the APC National Publicity Secretary in Abuja.

The party described the speculations as mischievous, adding that the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) should be allowed to do its job.

“We have become aware of a decidedly mischievous and intentionally misleading tweet by Mr Jackson Ude.

“He alleged that President Tinubu had a telephone conversation with the CJN, in which the CJN purportedly told the president and the APC to prepare for a presidential election rerun,” Morka said.

He said it was disturbing and disgraceful for Ude to fabricate a falsehood of this kind on a matter of serious national importance that was actively under review by the PEPC.

He maintained that Tinubu and the APC won the Feb. 25 presidential election without a doubt.

Morka added that the party and Tinubu do not have any need to engage in side conversations with the CJN regarding pending petitions before the PEPC.

He said as the core democrat that he is, Tinubu respects the right of aggrieved candidates in the election to seek redress for any grievances they may have.

He noted that the Constitution and the Electoral Act provided effective guarantees of that right.

“The PEPC should be afforded the time and space to perform its important constitutional and statutory duty of adjudicating and delivering a verdict in the matter without needlessly calling the integrity of our Judges into question.

“Falsehood and conjecture by the likes of Ude only aim to inflame political passions, create doubt and panic, and preemptively undermine the verdict of the courts in this important matter.

“We are confident that Nigerians are smarter and more discerning than to be affected by this opposition brand of tasteless and crass mercenary expedition,” the APC said. (NAN)

Atiku’s Witnesses Fail to Prove Electoral Fraud against Tinubu — INEC

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), has urged Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja to dismiss Atiku Abubakar’s petition challenging the outcome of the February 25, 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 pre-hearing 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.

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.