Peter Obi/LP File 51 Grounds at Supreme Court



As Peter Obi gets ready to head to the Supreme Court, these are some important issues the Supreme Court will have to explain to Nigerians regarding the technical PEPT judgement.


1. When a person is nominated by a political party, even in contravention of the Electoral Act, it is
non-justiciable to question such a nomination.

2. The only ground to question qualification for any candidate in an election would be the ground based on the Constitution of Nigeria like in Presidential election section 137 of the constitution and NO other!

3. One must be tried and convicted of a criminal offence in less than 10 years to be disqualified to be a candidate for an election.

4. Forfeitures as a result of money laundering related to narcotic trafficking is not a crime. Like Diezani Alison-Madueke had not committed any crime in spite of several permanent forfeitures of her properties.

5. Non-compliance with INEC Regulations and Manuals will NEVER be a ground to question election outcome!

6. Section 70 of the Electoral Act did not make it MANDATORY for INEC to publish regulations for, among others, Recording and the COLLATION of results.

7. Public Pronouncements, press releases and announcements by INEC with regard to any election are meaningless and would not be relied on in any election.

8. Electronic transmission of Election result in whatever form is not warranted by the electoral act.

9. There is never any form of validation, verification, comparing or ascertain of election results from the Pus as envisaged in section 64(4) of the electoral act. Just agree with whatever INEC had declared and move on.

10. One must submit a petition accompanied with all the grounds, material facts ( paragraphs) and evidences. That any evidence submitted after the submission of petition is meaningless.


READ ALSO : Peter Obi’s Full Speech in Bangladesh Business summit (video).


11. That even if evidences are made available to the adverse party and adverse party cross-examine witnesses or documents as the case maybe, it is still viewed by the “learned” judges as constituting ambush.

12. The idea that INEC is lawfully mandated to give access within 14 days of election to parties in election dispute is meaningless and will not be reckoned by the tribunal.

13. That our electoral laws recognise only Resident Electoral Commissioner for the purposes of election materials and not the Chairman of INEC.
14. That the judgement of the court appeal asking INEC to preserve the data in the BVAS machine in a safe storage system while reconfiguring the BVAS machine has no potency and must not be considered in view of the judges calling for the tendering of BVAS machine in court. That INEC certified copies of accreditation information is not enough?

15. That agreements reached between litigants in the presence of the judges and in court whereby they agreed never to question Certified True Copies by INEC amounted to nothing?

16. That Certified True Copies are no longer “ copies of original in my custody”

17. The subpoenas issued by courts to individuals/corporates to bear witnesses or to provide documents are no longer at the instance of the courts. That is to say a subpoenaed witness or document is not a witness or document of the court.

18. That estoppel is live even if those not parties in the earlier case are involved!

19. That section 137 of the Electoral Act, that barred oral witnesses in proving non-compliance if Certified copies or original documents are available, is NONSENSICAL!

20. That Electoral Act 2006 and 2010 are still in force as the “learned” judges kept quoting. Electoral Act 2022 is effectively repealed.

21. That determination of election petition must be based Procedural justice ( aka Technical), instead of substantive Justice ( Justice conceptualised in ethics and philosophy that focuses on the fairness and morality of the outcomes or results of a particular action, policy, or decision.)

22. That regardless of how clear the provisions of the constitution are, the judges can determine and make sense of it in whatever bias they want.

23. That the determination of FCT, Abuja is not about what the provisions of the constitution but what the “learned” judges believe is right regardless!

24. That by the provisions of section 134(3b) FCT, Abuja will also be considered a state in the selection of the second candidate for a run-off since FCT, Abuja is considered a state.

READ ALSO : Thief of Staff’: Netizens roast Tinubu’s chief of staff Gbajabiamila

25. That FCT, Abuja is a state in Nigeria.

26. That the only feasible way to institute a successful petition is for every candidate to form own mini-INEC, collate the results, take custody of own results including own BVAS machine as to produce all these within 21 days after the election in the tribunal!

27. That Polling Unit Results is the same as COLLATED results.

28. That no legal consideration whatsoever will be given to results uploaded in the IREV for the purposes of collation.



About Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *