Read: APC’s Appeal to Peter Obi’s Claims

THE COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT ABUJA

IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA HELD ON THE 2sn1 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023.
                                                                                                                                                                                               PETITION NO: CA/PEPC/03/2023

BETWEEN
l. MR PETER GREGORY OBI
                                                                      2. LABOUR PARTY                                                              PETITIONERS

-AND-

                                          1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMMISSION
2. SENATOR BOLA AHMED TINUBU
3. SENATOR SHETTIMA KASHIM
                                                                                   4. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS                                            RESPONDENTS

2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS’ REPLY TO PETITION

1. NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

TAKE NOTICE THAT before or at the hearing petition, respondents (respondents) shall by of preliminary objection urge this Honourable Court to strike out and/or dismiss the entire petition.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds upon which this objection is based are as follows:

I. THE PETITIONERS HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI

i.  The 1st petitioner has no locus standi to present this petition:

a. Whereas, it is pleaded in paragraph 4 of the petition that the Ist petitioner was duly sponsored by the 2nd petitioner on whose platform the 1st petitioner contested the election of 25th February. 2023. the lst petitioner was/is not a registered member of the 2nd petitioner, 30 days before the date fixed for the primary election/congress that purportedly elected and/or produced the Ist petitioner (on 30th May, 2022), as the presidential candidate of the 2nd petitioner for the presidential election held on 25th February, 2023.

b. By the mandatory provisions of section 77(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, every registered political party shall:

i. Maintain a register of its members in both hard and soft copies.
ii. Make such register available to the Commission (1st respondent) not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or convention.

c. The 1st petitioner was/is not a member of the 2nd petitioner as at 30 days before the primary election of the 2nd petitioner held on 30th May, 2023.

d. As at 24th May 2022, that is. six days before the primary election of the 2nd petitioner purportedly held to produce/elect the 1st petitioner as the presidential candidate of the 2nd petitioner. for the presidential election held on 25th February 2023. the lst petitioner was still a card-carrying member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and he did not resign his membership of the said party until 24th May, 2022.

e. As at 30 days before the primary election of the 2nd petitioner held on 30th May, 2022, the Ist petitioner was still a presidential aspirant in the PDP, going round the length and breadth of Nigeria to canvass for votes of delegates in his bid to secure the presidential ticket of the said PDP.

f. The name of the I st petitioner is conspicuously missing in the Register of Members of the 2nd petitioners submitted to the I” respondent, 30 days before the 2nd petitioner’s primary election held on 30th May, 2022, as mandatorily provided by section 77 (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

g. By the provision of section 77(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act, it is only a member of a political party, and in this case, the 2nd petitioner, who had joined the party before 30 days to its primary election ( of 30th May 2022) or whose name appears in the Register of Members submitted to the lst respondent, 30 days before the election that can/shall contest election to any office under the ticket of the political party.

h. Section 77(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act does not allow for. or permit any candidate to belong to two political parties at a time, particularly, 30 days before the congress or primary election of such a political party, and more particularly, for the purpose of contesting any election on the ticket of such a political party.

i. For the larger part of 30 days before the primary election of the 2nd petitioner held on 30th May 2022, that is, 24 days, the Ist petitioner was/is a member of the Peoples Democratic Party.

J. 30 days before the primary election of the 2nd petitioner held on 30th May, 2022, the l ” petitioner was a member of the PDP, and his name was/is on the register of the PDP submitted to the lst respondent, as provided by section 77( 2 l and ( 3) of the Electoral Act.

k. The provision of 77(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act. 2022 is not just mandatory, but can also not be waived by the lst respondent or any political party or candidate. particularly, the lst and 2nd petitioners.

l. Not being a member of the 2nd petitioner 30 days before the primary election of the 2nd petitioner held on 30th May. 2022, and his name having not been on the register of the 2nd petitioner submitted to the Ist respondent by the 2nd petitioner 30 days to the primary election of the 2nd petitioner held on 30th May, 2022. Ist petitioner could not have emerged as the candidate of the 2nd petitioner in the 2nd petitioner’s primary election held on 30th May, 2022 and could not have been validly sponsored by the 2nd petitioner.

m. Further to (I) supra. the lst petitioner did not have any right to contest the presidential election held on 25th February, 2023, while the 2nd petitioner also had no legal right to present the Ist petitioner as its candidate for the said election, and. as such, Ist and 2nd petitioners, contrary to their assertion in paragraph 10 of their petition (that in accordance with the prevailing law, they have the right to lodge this petition to this court) have no such right or locus standi to present or lodge the petition; as both of them, either jointly or severally have violated/breached the extant laws the land, and they cannot take advantage of the illegal which they have committed (ex turpi caussa non oritur actio)

H. THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION ARE INCOMPETENT, VESTING NO JURISDICTION IN THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN THEM

i. Ground (i) of the petition to effect that the respondent was at the time the election not qualified to contest the election, when read with the facts purportedly supporting the ground. does not jurisdiction in this Honorable Court to entertain the said ground.

ii. Ground (ii) which alleges that “the election of the 2nd respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022” is unknown and strange to section l 34 (I) of the Electoral Act, and, as such. this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to countenance it.

iii. Ground (ii) of the petition is incompetent, nebulous, imprecise and speculative, having alleged in non-specific terms, that the “election of the 2nd respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices “OR” non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.•·

iv. The facts pleaded in support of Ground (ii). which alleges that the election of the 2nd respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 do not have nexus with the said ground.

v. Ground (iii) of the petition which reads that the “2”” respondent was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election”, if read together with the facts purportedly supporting the ground and the reliefs sought, becomes otiose and academic. thus, vests no jurisdiction in the court to entertain it.

III. THE RELIEFS BEING SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS ARE INCOMPETENT AND UNGRANT ABLE

i. Relief I (i) Which prays that “it be determined that at the time of the Presidential Election held on 25′” February). 2023. the 2nd and 3″‘ respondents were not qualified to contest the election”, is generic, nebulous and at large: it confers no specific benefit to the advantage of the petitioners.

ii. The Relief I (i)  is the principal relief.

iii. Relief I (ii) which reads thus: ·’that it be determined that all the votes recorded for the 2nd respondent in the election are wasted votes, owing to the non-qualification of the 2nd and 3rd respondent” is also amorphous, omnibus and vague; it confers no benefit on the petitioners.

iv. Relief I (iii) which reads thus: ‘”that it be determined that on the basis of the remaining votes (after discountenancing the votes credited to the 2nd respondent) the l” petitioner scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25% of the votes cast in each of at least 2/3 of the States of the Federation, (sic) and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and satisfied the Constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the 25’1’ February, 2023 Presidential Election’”, has no nexus with reliefs l(i) and I (ii), and is also not borne out from the grounds and pleadings of the petitioners.

v. By the way and manner, the petitioners have couched relief (iii), they have adulterated, twisted, edited and manipulated the clear provision of section 134 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, l 999 (as amended)

PARTICULARS:
a. Whereas, section 134 (2) of the Constitution reads thus: ‘”…he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least t\o-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja’” relief l (iii) as manipulated by the petitioners reads thus: ··that it be determined that on the basis of the remaining votes (after discountenancing the votes credited to the 2″J respondent) the I” petitioner scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25°10 or the votes cast in each of at least 2/3 of the The States of the Federation, (sic) and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and satisfied the Constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the 25th February, 2023 Presidential Election”.

b. The petitioners, in their relief l (iii) have misleadingly, introduced punctuation, by way of a coma, immediately after the words ”at least two-thirds of the States of the Federation”, before the following word. hand” in an attempt to alter the spirit, intention and letter of the said section of the Constitution.

c. The said relief l (iii) does also not confer any benefit on the petitioners.

vi. Relief 2, which is a follow-up to relief !(iii) is purely academic and confers no benefit on the petitioners.

vii. Relief 2 is premised on an incompetent ground and is liable to be struck out.

viii. Further to (i) – (vii) supra. reliefs l(i), (ii), (iii) and 2 are liable to be struck out and/or dismissed.

ix. The alternative 3 (which is alternative to 2) does not vest jurisdiction in this Honourable Court, as it is an alternative relief: not predicated on declaratory relief. It is an alternative reief ithe form of an Order. court is without jurisdiction to consider an alternatove relief to a dormant relief.

x. Further to ( ix) supra. no ground of an election petition can sustain the alternative relief 3 and is also liable to be discountenanced on this basis.

xi. The second alternative relief 4(i) is unknown to section 134 of the Electoral Act and the court has no jurisdiction to countenance it.

xii. Further to (xi) supra, relief4(i) is premised on dormant reliefs I, 2 and alternative reliefs 3, thus, amounting to placing something on nothing. The court is without jurisdiction to countenance it.

xiii. Relief 4(ii) is not properly constituted, even by the petitioners· showing in paragraphs 17 of the petition, wherein, it has been pleaded that while the 2nd respondent scored a total of 8,794,726 ( scoring the highest number of lawfi.il votes cast at the election as shown in number 6 on the table provided in paragraph 17 of the petition), Abubakar Atiku (number 14 on the table provided in paragraph 17 of the petition) came second by scoring 6,984,520, while the 1st petitioner came third by scoring 6,101,533.

xiv. Arising from (xiii) supra, the said relief 4(ii) cannot be considered or countenanced in the absence of the person/candidate who not only came second, but also won in some of the States petitioners are complaining of, including Taraba, Adamawa, Bauchi, Kaduna, etc.

xv. The said prayer 4(ii ), read together with prayer 4( iii) are ungrantable and incredibly ambitious.

xvi. Further to (xv) supra, relief 4(iv) becomes inconsequential and is rendered otiose.

xv11. The prayers contained in the further alternative 5(i) and (ii) are very much contradictory and couched at cross-purposes with prayers I. 2, 3 and 4, thus, making them abusive of the processes of court.

xviii. Prayer 5(i) is not rooted in the grounds of the petition, the pleadings supporting the petition or any law at all and is liable to be struck out.

xix. Prayer 5(ii) which is also sought in contradictory alternative to prayer 4(ii)(iii) and (iv) does not avail the petitioners under and by virtue of section 134(3) of the Constitution, as the I st petitioner came a distant third in the presidential election held on 25’1i February. 2023.

IV. THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION ARE OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

1. Ground (i) stated in paragraph 20 of the petition, along with the facts pleaded in support of same in paragraphs 21-27 of the petition are outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

PARTICULARS

a. By ground (i) of the petition. the petitioners have alleged that the 2nd respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election.

b. The allegations in support of the said ground as contained in paragraphs 21-27 of the petition relate strictly to the nomination of the 3”1respondent as vice-presidential candidate on the platform of the 4’1i respondent on 15 July, 2022.

c. The petitioners. not being members of the 4°’ respondent. lack the locus standi to query the nomination of the candidates on the platform of the 4th respondent.

d. Having failed to challenge the said nomination of the 2nd respondent within 14 days of the date and the events specifically pleaded in paragraphs 22 and 23 ( i) ·· ( iv) of the petition, the complaint under Ground (i), as it relates to alleged disqualification of the 2nd respondent which has been predicated on the nomination of the 3rd respondent. is statue barred pursuant to the imperatives of section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria l 999 (as amended).

e. By the token of the decision of this Honourable Court in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/108/2023 between PEOPLES’ DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. ALL-PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & ORS. delivered on 24th March. 2023, the complaints grounding the petitioners’ allegations of disqualification as relating to the nomination of the 2nd and 3’J respondents and the capacity of the petitioners to make those complaints are outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court because of the inhibiting judicial principle of estoppel per rem j11dicat111n and the doctrine of stare decisis.

f. Further to (e) above. the decision of this Honourable Court in CA/A BJ/CV /I 08/2023 affirmed the decision of the trial Coun in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1734/2022, where the said Court had disallowed a claim challenging the qualification and nomination of the 2′”1 and 3rd respondents on the same basis that the petitioners herein now seek to relitigate.

g. All the complaints of the petitioners on their Ground (i) ventilated in paragraphs 21 – 27 of the petition. which relate to the nomination of the 2nd and 3″1 respondents as candidates of the 4th respondent are pre­ election issues in respect of which the Court of Appeal. sitting as the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal. does not have jurisdiction to entertain.

ii. The petitioners do not have the right to present an election pet1t1011 premised on the averments in paragraphs 21 – 27 of the petition.

PARTICULARS
a. None of the averments in paragraphs 21 – 27 of the petition that seek to disqualify the respondents is premised on any provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

b. Allegation of double nomination of an associate/running mate as made in the petition is not a cognizable basis for disqualification of the winner of a Presidential election under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 1999 (as amended).

c. By the provisions of Section 134(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the petitioners can only present a Presidential election petition on disqualification based on the provisions of sections 13 land 137 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, J 999 (as amended).

d. The averments in paragraphs 21 – 27 of the petition are not anchored on or rooted in any of the express provisions of sections 131 and l 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, l 999 (as amended).

iii. Ground (i) staled in paragraph 20 of the petition along with the pleadings in support thereof contained in paragraphs 28 – 31 of the petition. do not vest this Honourable Court with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a petition against the 2nd respondent.

PARTICULARS

a. The pleadings in paragraphs 28-31 of the petition hinge the alleged disqualification of the 2’1″ respondent on a decision of the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois. Eastern Division in ease No 93C–t483 delivered on October 4. 1993.

b. The 2nd respondent herein named was not a party or defendant in the said case No 93(-4483.

c. The 2nd respondent was/is not one of the listed parties in the decision of the United States District Court. No11hem District of Illinois. Eastern Division in case No 93C-4483 delivered on October 4. 1993, as reproduced in paragraph 28 of the petition.

d. The pleadings in paragraphs 28 – 3 l of the petition do not disclose a reasonable cause of action cognizable under Sections 131, 134 and 137 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and section 134 ( J) (a) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

e. The decision of the United States District Court. Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in case No 93C-4483 delivered on October 4, J 993, was not rendered by a Court or Tribunal created pursuant to (or identified in) Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

f. The decision of the United States District Court. Northern District of Illinois. Eastern Division in case No 93C-4483 delivered on October 4, 1993 is/was not in respect of any cause of action or offence created by an Act of the National Assembly or law of a State. any subsidiary legislation or instrument under the provisions of a law in Nigeria or any written law in Nigeria.

g. This Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to enforce the purported decision of the United States District Court. Northern district of Illinois, Eastern Division in case No 93C-4483 delivered on October 4, 1993. as sought and alleged under paragraphs 28. 29. 30, 31 and 32 of the petition; the said decision having not been registered in any trial court or domesticated in any court in Nigeria.

h. The case of the petitioners as pleaded has not disclosed any disqualifying factor as prescribed by Section 137 (I) (d) and (e) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) in that:

( i) The 2″” respondent is not currently under sentence of death imposed by any competent court of law or tribunal in Nigeria or any jurisdiction at all.

(ii) The 2nd respondent is not currently under a sentence of imprisonment or fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud imposed by any competent court of law or tribunal in Nigeria.

(iii) The petition of the petitioners does not disclose any fact showing that within a period of less than ten years before the date of the election to the office of President, the 2m1 respondent had been sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or had been found guilty of the contravention of the code of conduct.

(iv) By the petitioners· own showing as pleaded in paragraph 29 of their petition, the order, case No. 93c 4483 sought to be relied on was made on October 4. 1993 (about 30 years before the presentation of this petition) not within a period of less than I 0 years before the date of election as stipulated by the Constitution.

(v) By the petitioners· own showing. the case No. 93c ..J.483 pleaded in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the petition and relied on in paragraphs 28,29,3031 and 32 of the petition is not a case of criminal forfeiture cognizant under 18 CSC 982 which deals with Criminal forfeiture. rather a civil case for civil forfeiture under 18 CSC 981 which the United States of America instituted as a civil Plaintiff against identified properties (not persons) as defendants in respect of which the United States District Court. Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division exercised its civil jurisdiction (not criminal jurisdiction) under 28 USC 1345 and 1355. Case No.93c 4483 did not generate and had no capacity to generate a criminal conviction or sentence to constitute disqualifying factors under Section 137 ( l) of the Constitution.

(vi) Case No.93c 4483 did not involve the process of arraignment, taking of plea, conduct of trial, taking of oral evidence (including cross-examination). hearing of defense, finding of guilt, conviction and sentencing.

iv. The United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. Eastern Division, coram Judge John A. Nordberg did not, in Case No: 93C 4483 make the Order reproduced in paragraph 29 of the petition.

PARTICULARS
a. In paragraph 29 of the petition. the petitioners have reproduced an alleged Order made by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. Eastern Division. coram Judge John A. Nordberg in Case No: 93C 4483 on October 4, 1993.

b. Further to (a) above, the petitioners have reproduced an order allegedly made pursuant to “21 U.S.C 38l(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C 982”.

c. Judge John A. Nordberg did not make any Order in Case No: 93C 4483 pursuant to “21 U.S.C 38l(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C 982” on October, 1993 or on any day whatsoever.

d. The final orders of Judge John A. Nordberg in Case No: 93C 4483 were made pursuant to a settlement agreement (in the mold of a consent judgment) under the court’s civil jurisdiction in 18 l:.S.C 981.

e. The pet1t1oners have deliberately misrepresented that a criminal forfeiture order was made by a Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C 982 when no such order was made or criminal jurisdiction exercised by the court.

f. By premising their petition on a non-existent decision or deliberately misrepresented decision, the petitioners have divested the Court of jurisdiction.

v. Further to the objection in ground (iv) above, the ground contained in paragraph 20 (i) of the petition and all the pleadings in support of same are academic and unable to confer any benefits on the petitioners.

PARTICULARS
a. The Ist petitioner who contested on the platform of the 2nd petitioner was not the first runner up at the election as the petitioners rightly pleaded in paragraph 17 of the petition.

b. A challenge to the qualification of the 2nd and yd respondents herein ( for the purpose of declaring their votes as wasted votes) cannot confer any benefit on the petitioners who were not runners up to the 2nd respondent at the election.

vi. The grounds contained in paragraph 20 (ii) & (iii) of the petition are incompetent statutorily incompatible, and mutually exclusive.

PARTICULARS

a. By dint of section l 34 ( b) and ( c) of the Electoral Act 2022, the grounds of a petition are either that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Act; or that the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

b. Further to (a) above, the Electoral Act creates disjunctive and mutually exclusive grounds to question an election.

c. In defiance of section of I 34 (b) of the Electoral Act 2022, the petitioners have predicated the ground contained in paragraph 20 (ii) of the petition on both corrupt practices and non-compliance and further premised both disjunctive grounds on the same pleadings vide paragraphs 73-78 & 79 of the petition.

cL In violation of section I 34 (b) and (c) of the Electoral Act 2022, the petitioners have predicated the petition on the disjunctive grounds of alleged invalidity of the election (pursuant to section 134 (b) of the electoral Act) and that the 2nd respondent was not duly elected by the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election (pursuant to section 134 (c) of the Electoral Act).

e. Arising from (a)-(d) above, grounds 20(ii) and (iii) of the petition ought to be struck out along with the supporting pleadings.

f Further to (e) above, reliefs 4 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) and 5 (i) and (ii) in the petition ought to be struck out.

v11. The ground contained in paragraph 20(ii) of the petition is incompetent
and divests the court of jurisdiction.

PARTICULARS
a. The ground in paragraph 20(ii) of the petition states that –The election of the 2nd Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non­ compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022… ( underline ours).

b. By the presentation of the ground in paragraph 20(ii), the alleged corrupt practices and non-compliance have been isolated to the election of the 2nd respondent.

c. Further to (b) above. the alleged election that is stated to be invalid is also isolated to the 2nd respondent.

d. By section 134( l) {b) of the Electoral Act. 2022. a ground of a petition premised on corrupt practices and non-compliance cannot be isolated to a particular candidate but must relate to the entire election.

e. The only.-grounds in section l 34 of the Electoral Act that can be isolated and exclusive to a particular candidate are the grounds stipulated in
section 134( I )(a) and (c).

f. The petitioners have not presented any ground compatible with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

g. The ground in paragraph 20(ii) of the petition is incompetent and ought to be struck out along with the paragraphs of the petition and reliefs based on it.

Viii. The pleadings in paragraphs 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87. 88, 89. 90. 91, 92. 93. 94. 95, 96. 97 and 98 of the petitions under Ground 3 of the petition do not disclose any fact as to failure to score majority of lawful votes pursuant to the said Ground 3.

PARTICULARS
a. Paragraphs 80 82 of the petition have been presented underground (iii) of the petition alleging that the 2nd respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

b. The said paragraphs 80 -· 82 are pleadings in respect of sections 33 and 134 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and alleged failure to achieve the Constitutional spread especially based on the petitioners· contention of a compulsion to score 25% of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory. Abuja.

c. A case based on failure to score the requisite constitutional spread cannot be one premised on failure to score the majority of lawful votes.

d. A claim premised on failure to achieve the constitutional spread presupposes that the respondent already scored the majority of the lawful votes.

e. Paragraphs 84 – 98 are pleadings in respect of alleged non-transmission of results by electronic means and not in relation to the ground that the 2nd respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

f. Paragraphs 80 – 82 and 84 – 98 do not disclose any complaint or challenge to validity of votes.

g. Paragraphs 80 82 and 84- 98 of the petition are incompetent and ought to be struck out along with the reliefs they purport to project/support.

h. Paragraphs 9. 52. 53. 54. 55. 60. 66. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 92, 95, 96 & 97 of the petition contain vague, imprecise, general and nebulous pleadings that do not meet the degree of specificity required by the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022. and ought lo be struck out.

V. THE PETITION IS NOT PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

1. The entire petition is not properly constituted. as the pet1lloncrs are challenging the election of 25’11Februan. 2025. even in States where they won. including. but not limited to Enugu, Lagos. Edo. Cross-River. Abia. Anambra. Delta, Imo, Ebonyi. Plateau and Federal Capital Territory. Abuja: whereas, under section l 33(2) of the Electoral Act. 2022. the party whose election is being challenged shall be made a respondent

ii.  The entire petition does not disclose any reasonable cause of action or cause of action at all.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, the respondents hereby formulate their reply as follows:

2.  SAVE AND EXCEPT as it is hereinafter expressly admitted, the 2nd and 3rd respondents ( respondents) expressly deny each and every paragraph of the petition as if same were expressly set out herein and traversed seriatim. Except a contrary intention is expressly evinced, references in this reply to paragraphs indicate paragraphs of the petition.

3. The respondents admit paragraphs l l, 12, 17 and I 9 of the petition.

4. The respondents deny paragraphs (and all sub-paragraphs contained thereunder) I, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14. 15, 16, 18, 20. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42.43,44,45,46.47.48.49. 50,51, 52, 53,54. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59.60,61,62, 63.64. 65.66,67. 68,69, 70. 71. 72, 73, 74. 75, 76, 77. 78, 79, 80. 81. 82, 83, 84.85, 86, 87, 88, 89,90, 91,92,93. 94, 95,96,97,98,99. 100,101 and 102(as well as reliefs 1,2,3,4 and 5) of the petition.

5. At the election to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria conducted by the r’ respondent on 25’h February. 2023, the 1st respondent contested as the candidate of the 4th respondent ( with the 3rd respondent as his running mate) and having polled 8,794,726 votes across Nigeria (which was the highest amongst the 18 candidates at the election), and also satisfied all other requirements to be returned as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, he was validly so returned.

6. As between the 2nd respondent and the I st petitioner, while the 2nd respondent has always been a most consistent politician. who has not shifted political tendency and alignment, the I st petitioner has consistently, crisscrossed different political parties of Nigeria, including being a member of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and not until six days to the primary election of the 2nd petitioner, which held on 3011, !!lay, 2022, he was a member of the PDP, canvassing for votes and supports, to be the presidential flagbearer of the party.

7. While being a member of APGA, 1st petitioner swore that he will never leave APGA and in fact that he will die with APGA. Respondents shall found on video clips where the 1st petitioner made the undertaking aforesaid under oath.

8. Later, the 1st petitioner left APGA to join the PDP and later left the PDP to join the 2nd petitioner almost on the eve of the primary election held on 30th May, 2022, for the nomination of the party’s presidential candidate of the 2nd petitioner.

9. The 1st petitioner was the vice-presidential candidate of the PDP in the 2019 presidential election and throughout the post-election litigation process that followed the 2019 presidential election, he was always in court to represent the then PDP’s presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

10. As between the 2nd  petitioner and the 4th respondent, while the 4th respondent is a national party, popular amongst Nigerians, cutting across all divides, the 2nd petitioner has always been an obscure political party, controlling no State government in Nigeria, no representatives in the National Assembly as at now, no political structure in most of the States of the Federation. etc.

l l. Presently (and/or) from 2015 till date, the 4th respondent has been the political party in power in Nigeria; it presently has the President of the country, 20 State Governors, 64 Senators, 217 members of the House of Representatives and about 600 members of the States’ Houses of Assembly, nationwide; while the 2nd petitioner has no State Governors, one Senator, one member of the House of Representatives, etc.

12. In reaction to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the petition, the respondents assert that the 2nd petitioner has never recorded success in any previous election in Nigeria on a national or significant scale. At the National Assembly election conducted on the same day as the 2023 Presidential election, the 2nd petitioner only won six (6) out of the One hundred and nine (109) Senatorial seats and less than I 0% of the three hundred and sixty (360) seats in the House of Representatives.

13. Further to 12 above, in the history of electoral democracy in Nigeria prior to 2023, the 2nd petitioner has only ever won 1 governorship seat in Nigeria, namely, the 2007 governorship and 2012 re-election in Ondo State. In the 2023 election cycle, the said 2nd petitioner was only able to win l governorship seat, that is the Gubernatorial election in Abia State. The 2nd petitioner’s electoral reputation is contrary to that of the 4th respondent which has, in the past three election cycles in Nigeria, apart from winning the presidential elections also maintained an emphatic majority in both chambers of the National Assembly as well as the majority of states across Nigeria.

I 4. The respondents also assert that the petitioners did not duly appointed agents at majority or all of the polling units across the Federal Republic of Nigeria, contrary to the misleading averments in paragraph 7 and 8 of the petition and put the petitioners to the strictest proof of such appointment as stipulated by 2022.

THE 2nd AND 3rd RESPONDENTS WERE AT THE TIME OF ELECTION QUALIFIED TO CONTEST

15. the 2nd respondent:

i.) is a citizen of the Federal Republic Nigeria.

ii.) Was as at the time of the election above the constitutionally prescribed minimum age of thi11y-five years and thus not disqualified on account of his age.

iii.) Is a member of the 4111respondent and duly sponsored by the said 4111respondent after emerging from its primary election conducted on 8111June, 2022.

iv.) Is a holder of a Degree of Bachelor of Science in Business and Administration from the Chicago State University since 1979.

v.) Has vast private and public sector work experience including working with Mobil Oil Nigeria as an auditor, and later treasurer of the company.

vi.) In a bid to actualize his quest for public service. left his lucrative and secure employment in Mobil Oil Nigeria, and forayed into active politics, as a founding member of the defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP). In 1992, he was elected by an overwhelming majority of lawful votes cast as a Senator of the Federal Republic Nigeria, representing Lagos West Senatorial District. The votes secured by the 2″d respondent at the time were the highest scored by any senatorial candidate in the entire country.

vii.) As a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. he distinguished himself as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance, Appropriation and Currency.

viii.) Following the annulment of June 12. 1993 Nigerian presidential election and the consequent fresh militarization of the Nigerian political leadership, which terminated the structures of elective governance in that Republic. he became a founding member of the notable pan Nigerian pro­ democracy group, the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) where he \Vas at the forefront of advocacy for return to democratic governance and the fight against military rule.

ix.) During the period in (viii) above (popularly referred to as the dark days of Nigeria’s military era because of human rights abuses and clampdown on pro-democracy advocates), he suffered many arrests, intimidations, threats, search and violation of premises, which ultimately eventuated his proceeding on exile out of Nigeria.

x.) Many pro-democracy activists suffered wanton attacks including death suspected to have been state sponsored in the said dark days and it was commonplace that a number of them proceeded on exile and together with the 2nd respondent, they continued to mount international pressure for the return of democratic rule to Nigeria. These pressures eventually yielded positive result in 1999 with the return of democratic rule to Nigeria by the birthing of the 4th republic which is currently running and in which period, the 2nd respondent has been a constant and prominent feature.

xi.) Preparatory to the return of Nigeria to democratic governance and commencement of the 4th republic, the 2nd respondent returned to Nigeria from exile and became one of the founding members of the Alliance for Democracy, on which platform he was successively and overwhelmingly elected by the people of one of the most populous states in Nigeria, Lagos State, as the Executive Governor of the State for two terms of four years each in 1999 and 2003.

xii.) As a result of his outstanding performance as executive Governor of Lagos State, he won various national and international awards and recogmt1ons from reputable organizations. such as the Nigerian-Belgian Chamber of Commerce; Federal Ministry of Works and the United Nations Habitat Group; as well as the Computer Association of Nigeria.

xiii.) In recognition of his stellar contributions to governance, humanity, educational development, and nation building, he has received several honorary academic awards by various notable academic institutions. Such awards and institutions. include: Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) (Honoris Causa) by the University of Njala, Freetown, Sierra Leone; Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) by Kano State University of Science and Technology; Doctor of Science (D.SC) in Management Sciences by Ladoke Akintola University of Technology; Doctor of Political Science and Diplomacy by Adeleke University, Osun State: Doctor of Business Administration by University of Abuja, and Doctor of Business Administration by Usman Dan Fodio University Sokoto.

xiv.) Was/is a founding member of the 4th respondent which. in its first national election after formation, ended the 16-year cycle of the Peoples Democratic Party at the helm of affairs in Nigeria.

16. The 3rd respondent:
i.) ls a citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by birth.

ii.) Was, as at the time of the election, above the constitutionally prescribed minimum age of thi11y-five years and thus not disqualified on account of his age.

iii.) Studied at the University of Maiduguri and earned a Degree of Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Agricultural Economics in 1989.

iv.) Owing to his thirst for self fulfilment and academic excellence. proceeded to Nigeria’s premier University. the University of Ibadan. Oyo State, where he obtained a master’s degree (MSc) in Agricultural Economics in l 99 l.

v.) Joined the academia in 1991 as a lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Maiduguri. Bomo State and remained in the academia till 1993 when he left to start a career in banking.

vi.) Started a career in Banking in l 993 with the (now defunct) Commercial Bank of Africa Limited as head of accounts unit at the bank’s office in Ikeja Lagos State. He remained there till 1997, before moving to African International Bank Limited as a Deputy Manager and rose to become a manager in 200 I.

vii.) In 200 l, he joined the employment of Zenith Bank Plc as head of its main branch in Maiduguri Borno State. He subsequently rose through the ranks to become the Deputy General Manager/Zonal Head (North-East).

viii.) Between 2007 to 2011, served in the government of Borno State as a commissioner in various Ministries including, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Local Governments and Chieftaincy Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as well as Ministry of Health.

ix.) Contested election into the office of Governor of Borno State in 2011. and he won with an overwhelming majority of lawful votes cast. He was re-elected to the same office in 20 l 5 on the platform of the 4th respondent. a period when he also doubled as the Chairman of the Northern States Governors’ Forum, an umbrella body of Governors in the 19 Nrn1hern States of the Federation.

x.) In 2019 elected as Senator representing Borno Central Senatorial District of Borno State on the platform of the 4th respondent and assumed the said office after completing two terms as Governor of Borno State.

17. The respondents state that, after the 2nd respondent won the 4th respondent’s primary election conducted on 8th June 2022, he named Ibrahim Kabiru Masari as his running mate. The said Ibrahim Kabiru Asari however conveyed a notice withdrawing his nomination to the 4th Respondent and the notice and withdrawal were done within the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, as he gave signed notice in writing, delivered same to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent duly conveyed the notice of withdrawal not later than 90 days to the election.

18. Contrary to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the petitions, the respondents aver thus:

i.  The 2nd respondent is qualified to contest election and was duly sponsored by the 4th respondent as its candidate, while his return by the 1st respondent as the winner of the said election was right proper and a manifestation of the democratic plebiscites of Nigerians.

ii. The 3rd respondent was duly and properly sponsored as the running mate of the 2nd respondent on the ticket of the 4th respondent, and met all constitutional and statutory requirements, both as a candidate and to be returned as the Vice-President of Nigeria.

19. The respondents admit paragraphs 13 and 14 of the petition only to the extent that they were duly returned as President-Elect and Vice­ President-Elect, respectively, at the presidential election which held on 25th February, 2023, having won the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and having satisfied all the requirements of the law. The respondents, however deny the allegations that they were not duly sponsored and not qualified for their respective offices and accordingly, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of such allegations.

20. Contrary to paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and l 0. amongst others paragraphs of the petition alluding to the petitioners’ right to present this petition anchored on Ist petitioner’s membership of the 2nd petitioner to have validly contested the election. and without prejudice to the preliminary objection earlier raised to the entire petition, the respondents aver that the petitioners have no right, both under the Constitution and the Electoral Act to present this petition.

PARTICULARS:
i.) By section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2022, a political party is mandated to maintain a register of its members both in soft and hard copies and make such register available to the 1st respondent not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries. congress or convention.

ii.) The 2nd petitioner submitted or ought to have submitted its register of members to the I” respondent not later than 30 days before its primary election for the selection of a presidential candidate held on 30th May. 2022.

iii.) As of 30th April. 2022, the lst petitioner’s name was not on the list of members of the 2nd petitioner that was submitted or ought to have been submitted to the I st respondent.

iv.) As of 30th April. 2022. the Ist petitioner’s name was on the list of members of the Peoples Democratic Party. At the said time, he had been screened and cleared to participate in the presidential primary election of the Peoples Democratic party.

v.) It was only after the presidential primary election process of the Peoples Democratic Party had commenced and the lst petitioner willingly put himself up for nomination as the said party’s presidential candidate that he subsequently willingly allowed himself to be nominated as the 2nd petitioner’s presidential candidate on or about 27th May 2023.

vi.) Up until the presidential election of 25th February. 2023, the 1st petitioner still remained on the register of members of the Peoples Democratic Party submitted by the said party to the lst respondent.

21. Further to paragraph 20 above, the respondents state that petitioners lack both the right and the locus sta11di to present this petition.

22. In response to the generalized averment in paragraph 9 of the petition, the petitioners’ agents did not report and could not have honestly reported any incidence of anomalies to the I” respondent as the election was held in substantial compliance with the principles of the Electoral Act.

23. The respondents admit paragraph 17 of the petition and state further that, from the declared results, the petitioners scored the percentages stated below the following named states at the presidential election:

I .Yobe State – 0.6%
2. Zamfara State – 0.3%
3. Sokoto State – I. l %
4. Osun State – 3.17%
5. Kwara State – 6.6%
6. Kebbi State – 1.9%
7. Katsina State – 0.6%
8. Jigawa State – 0.2%
9. Ekiti State – 3.6%
10. Gombe State – 5.1%
I l. Borno State – 1.5%,
l 2. Adamawa State – 14.4%
13. Kano State – 1.6%
14. Kogi State – 12.3%
15. Oyo State -12.2%
l6. Ogun State-14.7%
17. Niger – 10.3%
18. Bauchi State 3.2%
19. Ondo State – 8.59%
20. Kaduna State – 21.65%
21. Akwa Iborn State – 23.9%

24. Further to paragraph 18 of the petition, the respondents state that the total number of registered voters in Nigeria was not and could not have been in the realm of the projected figure of 934,690,008, listed in the said paragraph of the petition.

25. Further to paragraph 7 above. the petitioners scored less than 25% of the votes cast in at least 21 States of the Federation. Respondents state that the petitioners did not score majority of valid votes cast and 25% of the votes in at least two-thirds of each of the States and Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

26. At the hearing of this petition. the respondents shall rely on the table immediately appearing. showing States where the respondents won at least 25% of the votes cast, compared with the abysmal performance of the petitioners:

TABLE

27. Further to paragraph 26 supra (Table I). respondents shall rely on Table 2 appearing hereunder, graphically presenting the comparative perfom1ance of the respondents and the petitioners in respect of geographical spread across al! States of the Federation:

TABLE 2

28. Specifically, the Table below (Table 3). draws a comparative analysis of the performance of the petitioners in States where the 2nd respondent won the majority of votes cast at the presidential election:

TABLE 3

TABLE SHOWING STATES WHERE APC WON COMPARED W!TH LP PERFORMANCE

PERCENTAGE OF VOTES BY PARTIES:
S/N – STATES – APC – LP
1. Benue – 40.3% – 40.0%
2. Barno – 54.2% – 1.5%
3. Ekiti – 65.4% – 3.7%
4. Jigawa – 45.8% – 0.2%
5. Kogi- 52.7% – 12.3%
6. Kwara – 56.1% – 6.6%
7. Niger – 48.2% – 10.3%
8. Ogun – 58.9% – 14.8%
9. Ondo – 67.1% – 8.6%
10. Oyo – 55.6% – 12.2%
11. Rivers – 44.2% – 33.4%
12. Zamfara – 59.3% – 0.3%

29. Further to paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 supra. the respondents state thus:
i. The petitioners did not get and could not have gotten the necessary majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

ii. The petitioners only scored 25 o of the votes cast in 16 States of the Federation, as against the petitioners who scored more than 25% in 29 States of the Federation.

30. Contrary to the grounds listed in paragraph 20 of the petition, the respondents assert that:

i. The 2nd respondent was, at the time of the election, eminently qualified to contest the election.

ii. The election of the 2nd respondent was in substantial compliance with the provisions and principles of the Electoral Act, 2022, valid and devoid of corrupt practices.

iii. The 2nd respondent was duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.

31. In reaction to the averments in paragraphs 21 -27,the respondents state that:

i.) The procedure for the nomination of the 2nd respondent as the presidential flagbearer of the 4’11 respondent was by a primary election that was duly convened and conducted pursuant to the Electoral Act.

ii.) The statutory procedure for the selection of the 3rd respondent as vice-presidential candidate was different from that of the 2nd respondent as the said 3rd respondent was not required to go through the process of any primary election.

iii.) A candidate in an election who wishes to withdraw his candidacy has an obligation to submit a notice in writing to his Political
Party withdrawing his candidature.

iv.) Upon submission of the notice in (iii) above, the obligations of the candidate are complete, his candidacy stands withdrawn and he has discharged himself of all/any impediment to another nomination. It is then for the political party to subsequently notify the l” respondent of such withdrawal not later than 90 days to the election.

32. Further to paragraph 31 above, the respondents plead that, by a Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal dated 6th July, 2022, addressed to the National Chairman of the 4th respondent and executed before a Notary Public, Emoedume l. Brai, Esq. on the same day, the 3rd respondent notified the 4th respondent of the voluntary withdrawal of his candidacy for the Borno Central Senatorial District election scheduled to hold on 25th February, 2023. The respondents shall found and rely on copy of the said Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal.

33. Following the 3rd respondent’s voluntary withdrawal of his candidacy from the senatorial election, a fresh primary election was conducted to nominate the 4th respondent’s candidate for the election into the office of Senator representing Borno Central Senatorial District of Borno State, wherein, Barr. Kaka-Shehu Lawan emerged as candidate of the 4th respondent for the said senatorial election.

34. The primary election that returned the said Barr. Kaka-Shehu Lawan was duly monitored by the Ist respondent, who at the time, had notice and was duly aware of the withdrawal of the 3rd respondent as candidate of the lst respondent from the senatorial contest, which said withdrawal was the sole reason for the fresh primary election.

35. The 3rd respondent’s selection by the 2nd respondent as his running mate qua Vice-Presidential candidate did not occur until 15th July, 2022, a period of at least 9 days after his voluntary withdrawal as the senatorial candidate of the 4th respondent. Thus, paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are false, erroneous and misleading.

36. In further demonstration of the false averments in paragraph 25 of the petition, as at the time the 3rd respondent became the vice-presidential candidate of the 4th respondent, he had already withdrawn his candidature for that Senatorial District and ceased to be the nominated senatorial candidate of the 4th respondent, and another person had already emerged as the candidate of the 4th respondent for the said senatorial district.

37. The respondents contend that under the Electoral Act and the Regulations of the lst respondent, it is mandatory that Final Lists of Candidates contesting election are not only published on its website, but also advertised through different media across the country. The essence of the publication is to allow any person/aspirant who has objection to any candidate whose name appears on the Lists, to ventilate his objection in any law coul1.

38. Further to 37 above, the respondents aver that at no time did the Ist respondent publish or advertise the name of the 3rd respondent as the candidate of the 4th respondent for the Borno Central Senatorial District election.

39. The respondents contend further that the only name of the candidate representing the 4th respondent for the Borno Central Senatorial District election published and advertised by the lst respondent was that of Barr. Kaka-Shehu Lawan. The respondents shall found on all publications made by the 1st respondent to this effect.

40. The respondents aver that their sponsorship by, and participation at the election as candidates of the 4th respondent were not rendered invalid under any circumstances whatsoever, and the votes validly cast for them by the electorate at the presidential election are not and cannot be rendered as wasted votes. The petitioners who failed to gamer the quantum of votes scored by the respondents as well as the spread of the said votes cannot also take any advantage from the votes scored by the respondents.

41. The Presidential and National Assembly elections (particularly, the Borno Central Senatorial election) took place concurrently on 25th February, 2023, and the 2nd and 3rd respondents only participated as candidates at the presidential election, while Barr. Shelm Kaka Lawan participated as the 4th respondent’s candidate for the senatorial election in the Senatorial District.

42. Neither of the 2nd and 3rd respondents was nominated by more than one political pai1y or in more than one constituency or more particularly, knowingly allowed himself to be nominated in more than one constituency.

43. further to paragraph 42 above, the respondents admit paragraph 25 of the petition only to the extent that the entire Nigeria is one constituency for the purpose of the Presidential election and state that neither of them was nominated by more than one political pai1y or in more than one constituency.

44. The respondents state that it is the Ist petitioner that participated in the primary election process of more than one political pat1y for the same office; the lst petitioner put himself up for nomination up till as far as the screening stage for the presidential primary election of the Peoples Democratic Party and also participated in the presidential primary election of the 2nd petitioner.

45. Further to 43 supra, the respondents state that it is the ‘black pot’ in the lst petitioner that is frantically attempting to taint the unblemished ”kettle” of the 3rd respondent.

3RD RESPONDENT HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OR SENTENCED FOR COMMISSION OF CRIME AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION

The respondents deny paragraphs 27. 28, 29, 30, 3 L and 32 of the petition, put the petitioners to the strictest the allegations contained therein and state that prior to, or at the time of the election, or anytime whatsoever, the 2nd respondent has never been found guilty/convicted criminal offence in respect of which a fine of $460, 000.00 (Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) or any amount whatsoever. was imposed on him by any authority or person. including the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. Eastern Division in Case No. 93C 4483.

47. The respondents state that. in Case No. 93C 4483 at the United States District Court. Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division which was pleaded by the petitioners:
i.) No criminal charge was filed against the 2nd respondent;
ii.) The 2m1respondent was not arraigned and did not take/make a plea to any count in a charge for allegations of crime;
iii.) The 2nd respondent did not go through a criminal trial;
iv.) The 2nd respondent was not convicted of any crime or for any criminal activity;
v.) No sentence of imprisonment was imposed on the 2nd respondent;
vi.) No sentence of fine was imposed on the 2nd respondent;
vii.) No form of sentence was imposed on the 2nd respondent.
viii.) Case No.93c 4483 was a civil suit in respect of which the court exercised civil jurisdiction under 18 USC 981 and 28 USC 1345 and 1355.

48. The respondents further state that in Case No. 93C 4483 at the United States District Court. Northern District of Illinois. Eastern Division. no in personam criminal sentence was imposed on the 2nd respondent.

49. In further reaction to the false representations in paragraph 29 and 30 of petition, the said Case No. 93C 4483 was an action in rem against certain assets. The suit was settled amicably (mutual releases and parties agreeing to bear their own costs) and a resultant order of dismissal prejud· Specifically, order of Judge John Nordberg. dated September 15, 1993, it was found and held as follows.

‘”The parties further agreed that $460,000 from the defendant account held by Heritage Bank in the name of Bola Tinubu shall be forfeited by the United States …… The additional funds remaining in the account in excess of $460,000 shall be released accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the funds in the above accounts and any accounts held by Citibank or its related entities on behalf of Bola Tinubu or companies over which Bola Tinubu has control shall be released and the action filed against those funds held in those accounts by Citibank shall be dismissed with prejudice”

50. The 2nd respondent maintains that he was not convicted in case No: 93C 4483 United State District Court, Northern District of Illinois. The United States of America, through its Embassy in Nigeria, had by a letter dated February 4, 2003, addressed to the then Inspector General of Police, confirmed that upon their record checks of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Investigation Centre (NCIC), the centralized information center that maintains the records of every criminal arrest and conviction within the United States of America, there were no records of any form of criminal arrests, wants or warrants against the 2nd respondent. The respondents shall found and rely upon copy of the said letter of February 4, 2023, signed by Michael M. Bonner.

5 l. The respondents shall contend at trial that the purported proceedings in the United States of America and the subsequent order being relied upon by them have not, at anytime (and until now), been registered in Nigeria under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act or any other law in force for the time being within the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and as such, this Honourable Court is without jurisdiction to either admit it in evidence, countenance it at all. or rely on it for the purpose of determining this petition.

52. The 2nd respondent states that he studied in the United States of America. worked there before returning home to assume his employment with Mobil Oil Nigeria, and that before and after his election as Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 1992, he enjoyed an unrestricted right of ingress and egress to the United States of America and up till now. he still enjoys an unimpeded right of access to the United States of America. The respondents shall. at the trial. found and rely on data pages of the 2nd respondent’s international passports.

53. In addition to paragraph 52 supra, the respondents shall contend that all pleadings relating to the purported forfeiture proceedings in the United States of America arc inadmissible in evidence in Nigeria. and as such. that all paragraphs relating to the said pleadings ought to be struck out in limine.

54. Contrary to the vague pleadings in paragraph 32 of the petition. the respondents aver that:

i. All the votes scored by the respondents are valid votes. freely given to them by the Nigerian electorate who have exercised their franchise in accordance with their democratic rights.

iii. The electorate chose and preferred the 2nd respondent over and above the I” respondent who came a distant third at the election and who could not muster 25% of the votes cast in more than 16 States. as against the 2nd respondent. who scored more than 25% in 29 States.

iv. The 2nd respondent was validly returned as the winner of the election. having polled majority of lawful votes cast thereat.

THE ELECTION OF THE RESPONDENTS WAS NOT VITIATED BY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTORAL ACT, 2022 AND CORRUPT PRACTICES

55. In reaction to paragraphs 33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,42 and 44 of the petition. the respondents put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the averments contained therein and state that the presidential election conducted on 25th February, 2023, wherein the 2nd and 3rd respondents emerged winner, was conducted in substantial compliance with the principles of the Electoral Act, 2022.

56. Further to paragraph 53 above, the respondents aver that the I ‘t respondent substantially complied with ali the procedures highlighted in the Electoral Act, as well as I” respondent’s Manual and Regulations.

57. ln further response to the averments in paragraph 33 – 44 of the petition, the respondents state that the accreditation, voting, sorting, counting, recording of votes announcement/declaration of results and collation of results of an election under the Electoral Act, 2022 and subsidiary instruments made to assist in the conduct of the election is a hybrid of manual and technological components but still largely manual with significant human interface using the voters register, ballot papers, ballot boxes, various electoral forms ( of which fom1 ECSA is the base), ink and the BYAS machine.

58. Further to paragraph 56 above, preparatory to the general election of 25th February, 2023, the Ist respondent’s Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, made clarifications that raw figures of election results would not be transmitted electronically by the lst respondent, as such transmission was susceptible to hacking. The respondents shall rely on copies of national newspaper reports of Prof Mahmood Yakubu’s statements of 23rd February, 2023 and related statements of other days.

59. The conduct of the presidential election of25th February, 2023 was in substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure. As it relates to the technological component of the election process, the lst respondent was not in complete control of the entire ecosystem and was in most cases a user and dependent on other providers such as network service providers etc.

60. The respondents deny paragraphs 16, 17, 48 and 49 of the petition on the utilization of the virtual servers of Amazon Web Services (AWS) for the hosting/storage of the Ist respondent’s data. and put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the averments contained therein. In further response thereto, the respondents aver thus:

i) Mere utilization of virtual servers on Amazon Web Services (which is not conceded/admitted) does not make the AWS a participant or partaker at the election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on 25th February, 2023.

ii) AWS was/is not an agent/official of the I” respondent and its outputs and actions are not binding on the Ist respondent

iii) Apart from the Amazon Web Service, there are several other hosting service providers which are globally recognized, including but not limited to Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Alibaba Cloud, IBM Cloud, Oracle Cloud, Salesforce, SAP, Rackspace Cloud, VMWare.

h) Contrary to paragraph 48 of the petition, the Amazon Web Service does not have a separate content from the IRev Portal.

61. The respondents deny paragraphs 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 74, and 75 of the petition, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the facts contained therein and state further that a successful electronic transmission directly from the polling unit is not a condition precedent to the acceptance or validity of results for collation. As it relates to the declaration and collation of results, the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022 and the Manual for Election Officials, 2023 all clearly prescribe the manual mode of collation and contemplate circumstances of the delivery of “the BVAS and the original copy of each of the forms in tamper evident envelope” to the different levels of collation, “in the company of Security Agents” and willing Polling Agents. Respondents frn1her state that it is the manual result as entered by the Presiding Officers in the relevant Form EC8A that is declared as the result of the election at the polling unit.

62. Further to paragraph 61 above, the respondents aver that under the extant legal regime, the polling unit is the base and foundation of the election where actual voting, counting and announcement of results are done. Subsequent actions after completion of the election at the polling units cannot vitiate the valid votes already cast at the polling units in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act. The respondents further state that polling units and collation centers are physical spaces and not remote or virtual locations.

63. Further to the vague complaints (including at paragraph 53 of the petition) of the petitioners on the transmission of election results through the BVAS, the l” respondent is not precluded by any law, regulations or manual from using, applying, or relying on any other means of transmission of results apart from the BYAS. It is the further contention of the respondents that the use of BVAS is subject to vagaries of the entire ecosystem, including internet facilities, source of power, proper engagement of the BVAS technological device by the operators, etc.

64. Further to paragraph 63 supra, where there is inadequate power supply, poor internet facilities, or lack of proper engagement of the technological device, the technological or electronic architecture of the said BVAS will not function as originally designed, and the I” respondent’s Manual and Guidelines are not oblivious of this reality and have made adequate provisions in relation thereto, demonstrating the secondary nature and dispensability of any other mode of transmission of result apart from the manual mode.

65. In further response to the vague and imprecise pleadings in paragraph 51 of the petition, the respondents aver that the petitioners’ unnamed agents and the unidentified agents of the equally unnamed other political parties who allegedly \valked away from the National Collation Centre during the collation exercise did so. as a face saving measure, afier receiving reports from their respective situation rooms that their candidates, including the Ist petitioner. had performed woefully at the election, and when it had become obvious that the 2nd respondent was leading with a very wide and irrecoverable margin. The respondents further state that the collation at the National Collation Center was the very last stage of collation after same had been done at multiple lower levels and results entered in appropriate Forms. The respondents further state, contrary to the averment in paragraph 51, that at no point during the final collation of the results of the presidential election at the National Collation Centre did the agents of the petitioners or those of any other political party dispute the results of the election as collated by the I st respondent by presenting a different figure in order to require some reconciliation between conflicting figures.

66. In response to paragraphs 54 and 55 of the petition, continued upload of the results of an election after the declaration of the result of the election, simpliciter, has no effect on the validity, integrity or correctness of the result of the said election and does not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Electoral Act and the lst respondent’s Regulations. The respondents further plead that the continued uploading of results at the election is not a substantial non­ compliance capable of substantially affecting the results of the election.

67. Contrary to paragraph 56 of the petition. though the Ist respondent can compile, maintain and update. on a continuous basis. a register of election results to be known as the National Electronic Register of Election Results which shall be a distinct database or repository of polling unit by polling unit results, including collated election results of each election conducted by the lst respondent in the Federation in an electronic format at its national headquarters, the Electoral Act does not impose a duty on the !” respondent to update the said register prior to the announcement of results of elections.

68. Further to paragraph 67 above, the respondents further state that the National Electronic Register of Electronic Results is a device/innovation entirely different from the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IRev) and as such, the lReV cannot be described as the immediate access by the general public to the said electronic register of election result as erroneously averred by the petitioners.

69. The respondents also state that, polling officers do not resort to the IRev or National Election Register of Election Results to make declarations of election results at the polling units. Form EC8A (containing, inter alia, accreditation details as recorded from the physical BvAS machine at the polling units) and the voters register are the primary documents for making declarations of election results at the polling units.

70. The respondents deny paragraphs 57 and 58 of the petition and put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the facts contained therein.

71. The respondents deny paragraph 59 of the petition, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the facts contained therein and state that the l st respondent did not fail to fill the Forms EC25A, EC25A(i), EC8B and EC8B(i) in all the States where the respondents won as alleged by the petitioners in addition to the fact that there were no situations of substantial non-compliance that substantially affected the outcome of the election.

72. The respondents deny paragraphs 60 and 61 of the petition, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the facts contained therein and state that there was no neglect of any kind on the part of the ! st respondent in the conduct of the presidential election held on’ February, 2023 that vitiated the election outcome. The criminal allegation of vote suppression is also further denied and petitioners are put to the strictest proof of the generic allegation of such events in eighteen thousand and eighty-eight (18,088) polling units as alleged.

73. Contrary to the allegation in paragraph 6 l of the petition, the petitioners have largely contradicted themselves, alleging on the one hand that the lst respondent did not upload results and on the other hand ( as contained in the said paragraph 61 ), that the Ist respondent also mischievously uploaded blurred Forms EC8A. The contradictions are exacerbated when plead in paragraph 71 of the petition that they won the election on the basis of the electronically transmitted results.

74. The respondents deny paragraphs 62 and 63 of the petition and put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the facts contained therein. The allegation of alteration of votes in Rivers State is unfounded. The score of 175,071 declared for the petitioners is their correct score whilst respondents polled 231,591 votes as declared by the Ist respondent in Rivers State.

75. The respondents deny paragraphs 64 and 65 of the petition, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of same and aver that in Benue State, the votes recorded for all the parties, including the petitioners and the respondents were the votes validly garnered by the candidates at the election. While the petitioners scored 308,372 votes, the respondents scored 3 l 0, 468 votes. The votes pleaded by the petitioners in paragraph 64 to claim victory in Benue State are not rooted in the valid votes cast at the presidential election conducted by the lst respondent on 25th February, 2023.

76. The respondents deny paragraphs 66, 67, 68, 69,70, and 71 of the petition, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of facts alleged therein and aver that the results being uploaded on the IReV are the results as contained in the respective INEC forms. The scores reflected in the said results are an actual reflection of the outcome of the presidential election of 25th February 2023, without any form of misrepresentation and manipulations. All the results being uploaded emanated from polling units where elections were duly conducted and the scores any of the candidates at the said election, including the petitioners. not been reduced, tampered with, or falsely represented manner.

77. The respondents further aver that the election conducted on 25th February, 2023 of the presidential are as contained in the respective !NEC Forms and documents and not in any contrived Report as sought to be imposed by the petitioners.

78. The respondents deny the false assertions in paragraph 72 of the petition in respect of Ekiti Oya, Ondo, Taraba, Osun, Kano, Rivers, Borno. Katsina, Kwara, Gombe. Yobe and Niger States; and state that the votes cast in those States do not exceed the number of voters accredited to vote at the election. The polling unit results as well as the Register of Voters, and not the petitioners’ fabricated forensic report, are the documents that reflect the true state of affairs, as it relates to the presidential election of 25th February 2023.

79. The vague assertions in paragraph 73 of the petition are denied in respect of the 10 states listed therein and the unknown state listed as number 11 and described as ‘OTHER STATES OF THE FEDERATION”. Respondents state that it was the reaction of the electorate that was disfavorable to the petitioners and not the process of computation.

80. The respondents deny and refute paragraphs 74. 75, 76, 77 and 78 of the petition put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the indistinct averments therein in respect of polling units described as “the polling units”, “those polling units” etc. There were no incidences of over­ voting or breach of any regulation that was substantial or that substantially affected the outcome of the election.

81. Contrary to paragraph 76 of the petition. the 2nd respondent states that there is no proximity or nexus between him and the I” petitioner in the declared result of the presidential election that held on 251h February, 2023, as Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the PDP, came second, while the l” petitioner came a distant third and l contend that the petitioners’ quest for comparison of votes between the 2nd respondent and the I” petitioner is far-fetched.

82. Contrary to paragraph 78 and 79 of the the respondents aver that the presidential election of 25th February. 2023 was conducted in substantial compliance with the provision the Electoral Act and under no circumstance would the petitioners have emerged from the said election.

83, In specific reference to paragraph 79 of the petition. the respondents aver that:

i.  The petitioners are deemed to have abandoned their ground that the election of the 211J respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices,

ii. Allegation of non-compliance 1s different from that of corrupt practices.

THE 2ND RESPONDENT WAS ELECTED BY MA.JORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST

84, The respondents deny paragraphs 81 and 82 of the petition. put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the allegations contained therein and state that the petitioners· interpretation of the provisions of sections 133 and l 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is strange, disingenuous (with respect) and contrary to the dear letters and spirit of the said provisions and the entire Constitution as a whole. Given the circumstances of this petition where, by the petitioners’ showing, there were more than two candidates at the election, section l 33 of the l 999 Constitution is totally irrelevant to the petition.

85. The respondents assert that Nigeria’s democracy not based on an Electoral College jurisprudence particularly as it relates to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

86. The respondents further assert that there is no obligation that for a valid return from a Presidential election in Nigeria, a candidate must score 25% of the votes cast in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja because:

i.) Abuja had always been a part of Nigeria with indigenous inhabitants and additional land mass was added by adjusting boundaries and excising land from neighboring states, particularly Kwara, Niger, Plateau and Kaduna States.

ii.) Abuja is still inhabited by Nigerians who are deemed equal Nigerians living in any other part of Nigeria.
iii.) The Constitution did not intend to make residents of Abuja super voters or confer on them any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups and places of origin.

iv.) Further to (iii) above, the Constitution indeed forbids any special privilege or advantage solely on the premise of community, ethnic group and place of origin.

v.) The voters in Abuja are not superior to voters in any other part of Nigeria such that a candidate is mandated to score 25% in Abuja without such similar status for other states of the Federation.

vi.) The petitioners themselves agree in their paragraph 25 that Nigeria is one single constituency for the purpose of the presidential election. Thus, no part of that single constituency is superior to the other or confers a special status requiring a minimum threshold of votes not mandated in others.

vii.) The Constitution the Federal Republic of Nigeria, l 999 (as amended) does not create special voting rights voters in Abuja or allocate preferential voting rights either to them or to the

ii.) While every State has three Senators at the Assembly, FCT has only one; and while the FCT has only two representatives at House of Representatives, the least of the 36 States has is Five.

ix.) Abuja is not the first Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. The Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria was relocated to Abuja primarily for land mass, congestion and infrastructural considerations that had become a challenge with the immediate past Federal Capital Territory, which was located within Lagos State.

x.) Further to (ix) above, voters in former Federal Capital Territories in Nigeria did not enjoy super voter status like the petitioners now ascribe to the FCT. Abuja voters.

xi.) The mathematical variables in section 134 of the Constitution are two, to wit, one quarter of votes cast and two-thirds of all the states and the FCT, Abuja.

xii.) The mathematical indices in (xi) are conjunctive.

xiii.) If petitioners’ position was correct, both one quarter and two-thirds will be applied to FCT, Abuja separately. However, because petitioners know that will result in an absurd situation. they have chosen to apply only the mathematical requirement of one quarter to Abuja to the exclusion of the second mathematical element of two-thirds.

xiv.) Further to (xiii) above. in terms of the grammatical and syntactic construct of section 134 of the Constitution, the provision for two­ thirds is more proximate to Abuja than one quarter and petitioners’ failure to relate same to Abuja demonstrates their deliberate attempt to misrepresent the Constitution.

87. Further to paragraph 86 above, the provisions of the Constitution are meant to apply to the Federal Capital Territory. Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation and not an entity superior to the other Slates of the Federation. The Federal Capital Territory Act further reinforces respondents’ assertion that the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is for all intents and purposes to be treated as a State and not superior to a State particularly when construing legislations.

88. The variables established by the Constitution for the purpose of determining one-quarter of the total number of votes cast in two­ thirds of the States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, is 37 (that is. the 36 States of the Federation plus/and/conjunctively with the Federal Capital Territory. Abuja). The 2nd respondent scored at least 25% in not less than 29 states of the Federation which is far above two-thirds of the States and the Federal Capital Territory and is thus not inhibited by any constitutional provision from assuming office as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Arithmetically, two-thirds of 37 is 24.6 which is below the number of States wherein the 211″ respondent scored at least one quarter of the total number of votes cast at the election.

89. The respondents shall contend that it was not the intention of the law makers in inserting the provision of section 134 into the Constitution, that the Federal Capital Te1Titory. Abuja shall be treated as superior to any of the States of the Federation. and that the votes of any electorate thereat shall count as being superior to that of the votes cast by any citizen or voter in any State or part of the Federation. At the trial, the respondents shall give evidence to this effect and demonstrate that the FCT is made inclusive of the other States of the Federation in calculating the requirements of scoring two-thirds in the relevant sections of the country.

90. Contrary paragraph 83 of the petition. presidential of 25th February. 2023 and the that emanated therefrom, were in substantial compliance with the principles of the Electoral Act as well as the Regulations and Manuals for the election. Upon the proper computation already done by the 1st respondent the results at the said election. While the 2nJ respondent emerged winner, the petitioners came a distant third and could not even score one-quarter of the total number of votes cast in at least two-thirds of the States the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory. As not did they not score the highest number of votes cast at the election; they also did not muster the requisite constitutional spread at the election.

91. Further to paragraph 90 above, the pleadings in petitioners• paragraph 83 further contradict their earlier pleadings where they had claimed that results were not uploaded on lReV and that they were unable to inspect the IRev despite the orders of Court in that regard.

92. The respondents deny paragraphs 86, 87, 88, 88, 89, 90. 91. 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98 of the petition, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the averments contained therein and state that the allegations contained therein with respect to the technical issues that arose during the conduct of the presidential election on 25th February, 2023 were glitches characteristic of technological innovations which in most cases are not immune from errors and malfunctioning. This notwithstanding, the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 202L.

93. The respondents deny paragraph 99 of the petition, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the averments contained therein and state that all the votes recorded and credited to the 2nd respondent were duly garnered at the polls and not unlawfully credited to him by the 1st respondent or anybody at all. Further, none of the documents stated in paragraphs I 00 and l O l of the petition entitle the petitioners to the grant of any of the reliefs sought in the petition nor can validly sustain the pleadings in the petition.

94. The respondents shall also contend that of all the presidential candidates at the election, it was only the Ist petitioner who now cries wolf that scored incredible percentages of votes in his catchment areas, particularly, the South-Eastern States Nigeria. where he scored 95.24% of the votes cast in Anambra State, 93.91% in Enugu State, 77.1 3% in Imo State. 79.83% in Ebonyi State and 88.40% in Abia State. these whopping scores credited to the ls, petitioner the South-Eastern zone, 2nd respondent scored 2.I% in Abia State. 0.83% in Anambra State. 13.03 in Ebonyi State. 1.05 /” in Enugu State and 14.21% in Imo State.

95. The respondents shall lead evidence to show that even in situations and circumstances where there is a sole candidate for any election, and the sole candidate need just the ‘”Yes’” vote of voters, it is very rare for such a sole candidate to gamer 95% of the Yes votes. Respondents will fi.1rther lead evidence to show that in advanced democracies of the world, it is rare for any candidate to score 95% of the votes cast, Like the 1st petition did amongst 18 contestants. at the election of 25th February 2023.

96. Further to paragraph 95 supra, the 1st petitioner celebrates the results of the election wherever he won/wins and denigrates it wherever he loses. The respondents shall further adduce evidence of the 1st petitioner celebrating the victory of l’v1rs. lreti Kingibe and posing in a photograph with her as the 211c1 petitioner”s candidate who was declared the winner of the senatorial election at the FCT Abuja on 25’11February. 2023.

97. The respondents shall further contend that the petitioners have embarked on a wild goose chase in the presentation of this petition and, in the process, are questioning results of elections where the respondents lost, including where the petitioners were declared winners, as exemplified in paragraph 73 of the petition where petitioners were querying results of Lagos, Imo and Plateau where they won, as well as Taraba, Adamawa, Bauchi and Kaduna where PDP won.

98. Further to paragraph 97 above, respondents shall contend that this Honourable Court is without jurisdiction to countenance petition, including paragraph 73 thereof, without the joinder of the PDP and also, without the petition praying the court to nullify the votes scored by them in Lagos, Plateau and the other States of the federation listed as number l l.

99. The respondents contend that the entirety of the Petition is about guesswork, hype, speculation and conjecture, as there is nowhere in the entirety of the petition, where the petitioners have specified in any form howsoever, the number of their votes which have been affected by irreegularities which they bandy and what their total number of votes would have been on the one hand, and the number of the respondents’ votes that have been inflated by the much touted allegations of non-compliance/corrupt practices and what the votes of the respondents would have been on the other hand.

100. Further to paragraph 99 supra, the respondents state that generic and omnibus pleadings have been made throughout the petition, including paragraphs 62, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 73, all boiling down to guesswork and will invite this Honourable Court at trial. to discountenance the said paragraphs and/or any evidence extracted therefrom.

101. The respondents state that much of the petition is littered with reproduction of the provisions of the Electoral Act and INEC Manuals and Regulations, without facts to support the generic pleadings of the petitioners.

102.The respondents state that if anyone should complain about discount in votes recorded for him, it is the 2nd respondent who had shortfall of I 0, 929 votes in the scores recorded for him by the 1st respondent in Kano State, whereat, in the INEC Form 8D, he had 517,314, but in the EC8D(A), 506,412 was recorded for the 2nd respondent, resulting in a shortfall of 10,929 votes.

103. In terms of national acceptance of the respondent as a political figure, and maestro on the one hand, and that of the l” petitioner on the other hand, the respondent is far ahead of the I” petitioner every sphere and index, and this is clearly known to Nigerians and demonstrated by the results of the election,

104. Further to paragraph I 03 supra, in terms of structures, stability, national spread, political office holders who have won elections, either at the national level or State and Local Government levels, as well as national acceptability/spread, the 2nd petitioner trails the 3rd respondent far behind and this is equally well known to the electorate and the petitioners themselves.

105. Further to paragraphs 103 and 104 supra, while the 2nd and 3rd respondents scored not less than 25% of the votes cast in 29 States, cutting across the different geo-political zones, the petitioners only managed to score 25% in 16 States, in restricted geo-political zones, as demonstrated in Table 4.

TABLE4
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PERFORMANCES OF THE 2nd AND 3rd RESPONDENTS ON THE ONE HAND AND THE 1st AND 2nd PETITIONERS ON THE OTHER HAND AT THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 25-02-2023 ACROSS THE SIX GEO­ POLITICAL ZONES IN NIGERIA.

2nd RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO PETITIONERS’ VOTES PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2022

106.Pursuant to paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, the respondents hereby give notice of objection to the total votes of the petitioners in the 630 Polling Units drawn out from Akwa-lbom, Anambra, Enugu and Imo States, as contained in the document labelled as Appendix A attached to this reply, and specifically incorporated into this particular paragraph of the reply.

107. Respondents’ objections are premised on the various irregularities outlined against the respective polling units in Appendix A which is part of this reply.

108. An aggregation of the votes in the said polling Units will result in 78200 votes for the petitioners and 5286 for the 2nd respondent.

109. Upon a deduction of the said votes from the votes of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, respectively, from their respectively declared 6,101,533 and 8,794,726 votes, the petitioners will be left with 6,023, 333 votes, while the 2nd respondent will maintain a total of8,789,440 votes, as shown in the table 4 below:

TABLE 5
NAMES OF PARTIES LABOUR PARTY ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS
VOTES DECLARED 6,101.533 8,794,726
TAINTED VOTES 78200 5286
RESULT UPON DEDUCTION IRREGULAR VOTES

6,023, 333

8,789,440

110. The respondents shall at the trial, found and rely on certified true copies of the INEC result sheets for the different levels of collation in the areas comprising Appendix A.

111. When the 2nd respondent’s 8,789,440 votes are added to 10, 929 of which he had a shortfall in Kano State as pleaded in paragraph 99 above, his votes will shore up to a total of 8,800,369 votes.

112. Concerning the reliefs being claimed by the petitioners in paragraph I 02 of the petition the respondents contend that:

i. The reliefs do not avail them.

ii. The reliefs are at large.
iii. The reliefs demonstrate the academic nature of the petition.

iv. The reliefs are ungrantable.

v. In couching the reliefs, the petitioners intentionally muddled, altered, edited, interfered with and adulterated the provisions of the Constitution.

vi. The said reliefs are self-defeating.

This Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to countenance the reliefs.

113. Arising from the foregoing, coupled with the circumstances of this case, the respondents plead that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the stated in paragraph I 0:2 of their petition.

114. Shorn of all hype, hyperbole, grandstanding and frivolities, the petition has no substance in fact, logic and law as well as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. It deserves to be summarily dismissed. as same constitutes a crass abuse of judicial process.

115. At trial, respondents shall on, and hereby plead all the documents in support of every averment contained in this reply, as well as those incidental thereto. The said documents include, but not limited to:

i. The resume/CV of the respondents.
ii. Documents, letters, evidencing awards, recognitions. appointments, promotions, commendations. elections, etc.
iii. Copy of Stipulation and Compromise Settlement of Claims to the Funds Held by Heritage Bank and Citi Bank in proceedings before the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. Eastern Division and all processes and documents related thereto, in respect of case No 93C-4483 delivered on October 4, 1993.
iv. 3rd respondent’s letters of voluntary withdrawal from the Senatorial Contest of Bomo Central Senatorial District, his replacement and all INEC nomination forms yc1 respondent and Barr. Shehu Kaka.
v. The 2nd respondent’s immigration documents
vi. Correspondence between the Nigeria Police and the US Embassy in respect of the 2nd respondent
vii. Newspaper reports relating to the averments in the pleadings, as well as extracts from publications from various social media fora.
viii. Newspaper reports bordering on the l” petitioner’s decamping from the PDP to the 211J petitioner and surrounding matters.
ix. Form EC9 of the respondents, as well as that of the l” petitioner.
x. All Certified True Copies of Forms EC8 series to wit; EC8A, EC8B. EC8C, EC8D, EC8D(A) and EC8 and such other result sheets and Fonns, from the polling units all over the Federation up to the final declaration of the Presidential election results.
xi. Counterfoil originals known as pink copies of Forms EC8A·s from all the polling units issued to his agents at the election.
xii. Reports of local and international Observers that observed the conduct of the Presidential election on 25th February, 2023.
xiii. Newspapers and Magazine stories that attested to the free and fair conduct of presidential of the 25111February.

xiv. Video clips, DVD clips, charts and other such materials that attest to the free and fair conduct of the said election.
xv. Forms EC!A (I).
xvi. Fonns EC 17
xvii. Forms EC25A xv111. Fom1s EC25A(l)
xix. Forms EC25B
xx. Fonns EC25 B( I)
xxi. Forms EC25G
xxH. Forms EC25G series.
XX!ll. Forms ECO series.
xx1v. Fonns EC40G (II) series
xxv. Forms EC40J series. xxv1. Forms EC40A series.
xxv11. Envelopes containing Forms EC SOB and EC SOC
xxviii. Ballot papers, stubs, boxes, wraps, used and unused in all the States and FCT Abuja, including votes spoilt. rejected, etc.
xx1x. Forms EC40H and EC40(1)-(Ill).
xxx. CTCs of voters’ registers in the 36 States and FCT Abuja. xxx1. !NEC Polling Units Directory in all the States and the FCT.
xxx11. Print-outs of accreditation records as captured by smart card readers in all the polling units in the country.
xxxiii. List of INEC officers and ad hoc staff (including corps members) used and deployed during the election.
xxxiv. Checklist of polling unit materials.
xxxv. Summarv of total voters’ register in Nigeria on unit bv unit basis.
xxxvi. Security reports of the election.
xxxvii. List of agents of the APC and the 2nd petitioner throughout the country.
xxxviii. Expert reports and analysis, including reports generated and prepared pursuant to order of court made in favour of respondent on 8th March, 2023, by this Honourable Court

xxxix. CTC of register of members of Peoples Democratic Party which was submitted lo !NEC.
xl. CTC of register of members of Labour Pai1y submitted to !NEC
xli. Copies of reports of the Committee on the setting up of the Federal Capital Territory and all documents related thereto.
xlii. Copies of Hansards of the National Assembly, minutes and records of proceedings of the Constituent Assembly for the 1979 Constitution all in relation to the setting up of the Federal Capital Territory.
xliii. Reports of statistician, forensic experts and experts in the field of information communication technology
xliv. Documents to be tendered by means of subpoena.

116. WHEREOF the respondents pray the Honourable Court to dismiss this petition as lacking in merit, substance, bona fide, sincerity; and that same is frivolous, vexatious. disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and constituting a crass abuse of the processes of court

Dated this 12th day of April, 2023.