Tinubu, Atiku, Obi and the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal part one (Opinion)
By Sadiq Dasin
Expectedly, the INEC declaration of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Kashim Shettima of APC as winners of the February 25, 2023 Presidential Election was rejected by, among others, the candidates of PDP and LP who have applied to the Presidential Election Tribunal to have the results canceled. But the Supreme Court has ruled on Tuesday 9th May, 2023 in the case of Oyetola Vs Adeleke that INEC’s failure to upload results from Polling Units through BVAS to the IReV portal on election day cannot invalidate an election, and that any petitioner alleging over-voting in an election must be able to produce the BVAS, INEC voters register and/or a certified true copy of an INEC certificate of record for EACH POLLING UNIT to prove same. Based on this, I have no doubt in my mind that the case(s) now in the Presidential Election Tribunal against the declaration of Tinubu as president-elect were Brought In Dead (BID), Dead on Arrival (DOR) or at best, weak.
PDP/Atiku’s case against APC/Tinubu is based principally on 2 issues.
1. Non transmission of election results on the day the election held.
2. “Widespread irregularities, corrupt practices, and non-compliance with the provision of the law during the election”.
Now that the issue of non transmission of election result onto the IREV real time through the BVAS by INEC has been said by the Supreme Court in Oyetola Vs Adeleke as not fatal to a respondent’s case, I think there is no need to over flog it.
What remains now is the second issue of “widespread irregularities, corrupt practices, and non-compliance with the provision of the law during the election”pleaded by the PDP.
But even that has not only been difficult to prove over the years, but has so far remained impossible to prove in any Presidential Election Tribunal in this country because of the doctrine of “substantial compliance”. This doctrine is based on a belief that it is implicit and conceded that there must be flaws in the conduct of any election in the world.
That being the case, it is true, as said by the erstwhile SAN, Chief Richard Akinjide of the “two thirds of 19” fame in Awolowo Vs Shagari case that –
“it is impossible to conduct a flawless election but that once there is substantial compliance, then the election should be accepted as having substantially complied with the laws and the return should not be upset”.
That has been the position of the law in this country since 1979 when late Chief Akinjide said of the Awolowo Vs Shagari case that “you have the doctrine of substantial compliance that is written into all election laws in all countries”. With this, the case of Atiku/PDP against Tinubu is sitting on a weak ground.
To be concluded tomorrow
Barrister Sadiq Dasin, sent this piece for publication
