Public Perception vs Legal Reality: Analysing The Presidential Election Tribunal Verdict

In the realm of politics, perceptions often clash with reality. Nowhere is this more evident than in the aftermath of a contested election, where public opinion can diverge significantly from the intricacies of the legal process. Nigeria, a nation known for its complex electoral landscape, is witnessing such a divergence with the Presidential Election Tribunal’s verdict delivered on Wednesday, September 6, 2023.

It was a pivotal moment in Nigeria’s democracy as the electorates fixed their eyes on the judiciary like never before.

Like the February 25th presidential election however, the recent tribunal judgement has continued to elicit several interpretations and insinuations from passionate supporters of the political gladiators involved.

Overview Of The 2023 Presidential Election

As the African sun graces the horizon on February 25, 2023, all eyes were fixed upon Nigeria, the continent’s most populous nation and its largest democracy. To be clear, the Nigerian Presidential Election transcends beyond a domestic event; it carries profound significance for Africa and the global community.

Nigeria, often recognised as the “Giant of Africa,” has confronted its fair share of political upheaval and challenges in the past. With a population exceeding 200 million, a tapestry of diverse ethnic groups, and a multifaceted political landscape, ensuring free and fair elections has been a monumental endeavour.

Fortified by recent amendments to the electoral act, substantial financial support, and crucial international collaborations, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appeared poised to address the longstanding irregularities that have plagued our elections for generations.

However, at the end of voting and collation, the election results saw Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress (APC) being declared as the winner with 8,794,726 votes, Atiku Abubakar who contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party in second place with 6,984,520 and Peter Obi, the candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in third position with total votes of 6,101,533. This outcome stirred significant controversy, sparking outrage among the opposition parties and  their supporters.

Having rejected the election results in its entirety, the trio of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar (PDP), Labour Party’s Peter Obi and Allied Peoples Movement took their fight to the tribunal, where they mounted serious allegations against INEC and the candidacy of the declared winner, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The Petitions

Amid several issues, the petitioners (Atiku, Obi and APM) argued that Tinubu and Kashim Shettima, the vice president, were not eligible to contest the presidential poll.

They contended that the president was indicted for drug trafficking in the United States, that his academic certificates submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were forged, and that Tinubu is a citizen of Guinea.

The petitioners also alleged that since Tinubu failed to secure 25 per cent of votes cast in the federal capital territory (FCT), he should not have been declared winner of the February 25 election.

Tribunal Verdict: Petitions Dismissed!

In a unanimous decision, the presidential election petition tribunal court delivered the following judgements on the petitions tabled before it:

● The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal dismissed as incompetent the case of the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, filed to nullify President Tinubu’s election, citing the invalid nomination of his running mate, Kashim Shettima.

The court held that the issues the APM raised in its petition contained pre-election matters that could only be determined by the Federal High Court.

● The Panel also dismissed the allegation of the Labour Party, LP, and its candidate, Mr Peter Obi, that the 2023 presidential election was rigged in favour of President Bola Tinubu. In its preliminary ruling by Justice Abba Mohammed, the court held that Obi and the LP did not establish their allegation of manifest corrupt practices during the February 25 election with credible evidence. The court further stated that although the petitioners alleged irregularities in the election, they failed to provide specific details regarding where these alleged infractions occurred.

● Additionally, the PEPC dismissed the allegation that President Tinubu was convicted on a drug trafficking-related charge in the United States. The court clarified that this case was a civil forfeiture proceeding against funds in a bank and not an action against Tinubu as an individual. Justice Haruna Tsammani, who led the five-member panel, emphasised that civil forfeiture proceedings target property, not the owner.

● Furthermore, the court ruled that scoring 25 per cent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, was not compulsory for one to be declared the winner, as FCT does not hold special status over the other 36 states of the federation.

● The court also dismissed all petitions raised by the PDP and its candidate due to a lack of evidence. Regarding the allegations of election disruption by agents of the APC, the petitioner (Atiku Abubakar) mentioned that video recordings would be tendered as proof, but this was not done. In summary, the petitioners failed to prove the issue of election malpractice, and the court resolved the matter in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.

Tribunal Verdict: Public Perception 

Public perception often simplifies complex legal arguments and procedures. People expect a clear-cut verdict that aligns with their beliefs and biases. Still, the legal process involves a rigorous examination of evidence, adherence to constitutional principles, and application of established laws. This disjunction can lead to frustration and misunderstanding among the public, as it’s being experienced among a section of Nigeria’s voters.

On the tribunal judgement, public perception is heterogeneous. It’s a complex embroidery woven from various threads, including but not limited to political affiliation and ethno-religious background. To understand this divide better, we must first acknowledge the diverse narratives trailing the verdict.

For some, especially supporters of the All Progressive Congress, APC, the tribunal’s decision affirmed their faith in Nigeria’s democratic institutions. They celebrated and are still celebrating it as a validation of the electoral process and a win for democracy. However, for others, the verdict symbolised the perpetuation of a perceived status quo of corruption and inefficiency.

Legal Reality: The Burden Of Proof

To bridge the gap between perception and reality, it’s essential to grasp the legal framework within which the tribunal operates. The burden of proof in an election tribunal lies with the petitioner, who must provide compelling evidence of irregularities and electoral malpractice.

As asserted by Justice Haruna Tsamani, while delivering the PEPT verdict, “Where the petitioners alleged that the winner of an election did not score the majority of the lawful votes cast, they must prove two sets of results.

“The one they alleged is the lawful results

“The one they are challenging”.

The legal process demands specificity, consistency, and a high standard of proof, which may not align with public expectations. The tribunal’s verdict, therefore, hinged on its interpretation of the presented evidence.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In an age defined by technological advancements and the pursuit of efficient, transparent, and secure processes, it is imperative that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) takes bold steps to embrace technology and electronic voting in the nation’s future election so as to completely put an end to the usual perennial irregularities. Through the deployment of technology and electronic voting, the electoral body has the opportunity to revolutionise its electoral processes, making them more efficient, transparent, and accessible. This transformation can pave the way for stronger democratic institutions and increased citizen participation, ultimately advancing the nation’s progress and prosperity.

Secondly, it is crucial for any candidate aiming to challenge the ruling party in the next election to recognise the practical and legal challenges they will face in proving electoral malpractice within the tight 21-day window provided by law. As the saying goes, “he who alleges must prove,” and this requires an extensive effort to gather witnesses and evidence from thousands of polling units.

To address these challenges, it is pertinent that opposition candidates adopt a proactive approach by initiating pre-election planning to document and expose potential rigging. Starting this process as soon as possible, rather than waiting until after the next election, is essential. They should invest in building a robust network of volunteers and observers across polling units, ensuring they are trained in collecting and preserving evidence promptly and convincingly.

In essence, early preparation and strategic planning are the keys to mounting a credible challenge in future elections. By taking these steps, candidates can enhance their chances of success and contribute to the integrity of the electoral process in Nigeria.