Legal practitioners and political leaders have commended the September 6 ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal held in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory.

The court dismissed the case due to the opposition parties’ failure to substantiate claims of electoral malpractice against the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in the disputed February elections.

“The tribunal’s ruling is undeniably brilliant and sound,” said Olamiji Martins, a Lawyer and Political Analyst from Oyo State.

Martins sees the petitions filed by the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM), the Labour Party (LP), and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as weak and insubstantial.  

APM’s petition challenged the candidacy of Kashim Shettima and pointed out that Shettima initially obtained a senatorial form for Borno State but later abandoned this pursuit to become Bola Tinubu’s running mate for the APC. They argued that this amounted to a double nomination, which is considered illegal according to the country’s laws. 

“The tribunal dismissed the petition, referencing a similar case previously adjudicated by a Federal High Court in Abuja last year; once a matter has been previously adjudicated and a judgment rendered, it cannot be re-litigated, so bringing forth such an issue again is viewed as an abuse of the judicial process,” Martins said. “Shettima’s qualification had been established, and the petition was deemed invalid because he had resigned from the initial position he sought, making him legally eligible for the vice-presidential candidate position”.

The presidential candidates of Labour and People’s Democratic parties, Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar were seeking to invalidate the presidential election citing fraud and deliberate manipulation by the Independent National Electoral Commission that swayed the outcome in the favor of the APC. The petition also challenged the candidature of Bola Tinubu, scrutinizing his educational background and raising concerns about his prior conviction for drug trafficking in the United States.

According to Chapter 6 Section 137 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended), a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President, if within a period of less than ten years before the date of the election to the office of President, he has been convicted and sentenced for an offense involving dishonesty or he has been found guilty of the contravention of the Code of Conduct. Following this rationale, the tribunal dismissed the petition filed by Obi and Atiku. They ruled that the matter of Bola Tinubu’s alleged criminal conviction could not be substantiated, given that the case in the United States was focused on civil forfeiture, not a criminal charge. “Even if there were a criminal conviction, which dated back to 1991 or 1992, it wouldn’t have been applicable since the election occurred in 2023, well beyond the ten-year limit as outlined in the constitution,” Martins said.

On the allegations of election violence, rigging, and extensive manipulation of the electoral process by INEC and APC, Martins acknowledged that while elections often pose challenges, similar to those in other parts of the world, the Labour Party and PDP failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claims.

Obi and Atiku, both in opposition to Tinubu’s victory, have declared their intention to seek justice by appealing the tribunal ruling to Nigeria’s highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court.

“They must present compelling evidence to substantiate their case, rather than relying on social media to voice their concerns,” Martins said. “The court cannot actively seek evidence from public platforms; they must provide substantial proof, otherwise it will be a herculean task for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.”