By: News Peddlers
 |
| Layers (Photo Credit: Vanguard) |
On Thursday, some legal practitioners claimed the Presidential Election Petition Court's decision maintaining President Bola Tinubu's victory was legitimate and did not act on sentiments.
The lawyers spoke to journalists after the PEPC decision, which confirmed Mr Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima's victory in the 2023 presidential election.
The complaints submitted by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Labour Party (LP), as well as their respective candidates against Messrs Tinubu and Shettima, were dismissed by a five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani.
Theo Osanakpo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, stated, "What may be factually correct may be legally incorrect."
He stated that lawsuits were won by pleadings, which may be declarations of claims or defences, ''so what you put in is what you will adduce evidence to.
"Whoever that say I have 20 must have the evidence to show that you have 20; If they say that they have won, they would have been able to tender documents to prove it.
‘’The major challenge today is on the perceptions of the Nigerian public; they feel that judges are compromised, so it becomes difficult.
‘’In other words, the judiciary should put in its utmost best to regain the confidence of the people, making sure that they give justice judiciously and judicially,’’ he said.
Another legal practitioner, Don Loho, stated that the law was distinct from sentiments.
"When you look at the law, the judges are talking about the law, not fact, so that's why you apply the law to situations; it is different from fact," he stated.
Mr Loho claimed that the LP legal team performed poorly because they treated election issues as if they were in an distinct class.
"It's very technical; it's not just talking; you have to follow the procedure," he added.
He stated that they were discussing winning elections and having a majority of the votes without even discussing the results, asking, ''How many votes did they have?''
In response to the tribunal's verdict on the 25% vote in Abuja, Mr Loho stated that the Supreme Court had already decided the case and did not give Abuja particular attention.
Onyinye Ileh, a Port Harcourt-based lawyer, said she was pleased with the decision since petitioners should have proven their points before the court.
She insisted that the "judgement is based on the evidence in court; no matter what you say orally, it must be supported by strong evidence."
''You then look up the provision of the law that protects you on that particular situation.''
Ms Ileh stated that election matters dealt with data received from voting units, ward levels, local government collation centres, and, eventually, state levels to obtain final results.
''On this, it was said that LP (Labour Party) did not do well; they did not call their agents as witnesses to give on-hand evidence but brought those who were not physically present at the units.
‘’You can’t allege that you were cheated when you don’t have figures to prove that you were cheated and could not prove it,’’ she said.
(NAN)