PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETT IMA – PT 30 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 64, 65 reads: INEC not only suppressed the lawful votes obtained by LP in Benue State but also announced false scores for both LP and Tinubu & APC. LP was falsely declared to have scored 308,372 votes from the polling unit, while Tinubu & APC were falsely announced to have scored 310,468 votes. The actual scores of LP & Obi from the polling units in Benue State were 329,003 votes, while APC & Tinubu’s scores were 300,421 votes. This unlawful announcement by INEC denied LP the rightful winner of the election in Benue State. We intend to rely on the forensic analysis of the election materials conducted pursuant to the court's order during the trial. INEC’s reply: We deny p64 of the Petition and asserts that the scores announced during the collation of results from the Polling Units in Benue State are the actual votes scored by the candidates at the election. INEC did not suppress any votes scored by LP & Obi as alleged in the paragraph. Furthermore, we argue that the failure to disclose the exact Polling units referred to in the paragraph makes the argument in it incompetent. As for p65 of the Petition, we maintain that the result of the election in Benue State was correctly announced, and LP & Obi, who did not win the election, could not have been denied as the winner. The alleged Forensic Report that suggests a different fact from the announced result is contrived by LP & Obi for the purpose of this Petition. We put LP & Obi to the strictest proof of the statement. APC’s reply: We also deny p64 and 65 of the petitions and avers contrary to same that INEC never suppressed the lawful votes obtained by LP & Obi in Benue state at the presidential election. The results of the election as announced by INEC in Benue State during the collation exercise at the Federal Level were the correct and lawful result as obtained from the BVAS used in the state. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny p64 and 65 and puts the Petitioners to the strictest proof of the allegations contained therein. In Benue State, all votes recorded for the parties, including Obi and Tinubu, were validly garnered by the candidates at the election. LP scored 308,372 votes, while APC scored 310,468 votes as correctly announced by INEC. LP & Obi claim of victory in Benue State is not supported by the valid votes cast at the presidential election conducted by INEC. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 31 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 66 & 67 reads: The petitioners allege that INEC and its officers/agents, under the guise of uploading the result of the Presidential election on IRev, engaged in widespread misrepresentation and manipulation by uploading fictitious and incorrect results in polling units where there were no elections. We state further that the actual scores of LP & Obi were reduced, tampered with, and falsely represented in the uploaded election results on IRev. The actual scores of LP & Obi, obtained from the polling units and from the result of the election pursuant to the inspection of the election materials as ordered by the court, will be reflected in the Forensic Report of the election result. INEC’s reply: We deny the allegations contained in paragraph 66 of the Petition as they are false and baseless. We refute any claim of misrepresentation or manipulation by INEC and its officers/agents in uploading fictitious results in Polling Units or uploading incorrect results. The actual scores of LP & Obi are as announced by INEC, and there was no reduction, tampering, or false representation of the results uploaded in the IRev system. In response to paragraph 67, we maintain that any Forensic Report suggesting votes or scores at the election other than those declared by INEC are fabricated and concocted solely for the purpose of this Petition. We further assert that the allegations made in paragraph 67 contradict the averments in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Petition, which claimed non-compliance by INEC with the order of inspection granted by the Court. APC’s reply: We dispute the allegations made by LP & Obi in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the petition, as we maintain that INEC and its officers/agents uploaded the election results obtained from BVAS from the Polling Units to the IRev in a timely manner, and did not engage in any misrepresentation or manipulation of the results. The scores announced by INEC represent the actual scores obtained by LP & Obi and were not reduced or tampered with. We refute the need for a Forensic Report as there is no basis for such a report. We deny any contravention of the order of inspection granted by the Honorable Court as alleged in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Petition. Tinubu & Shettima: We deny the allegations in p66 and 67 of the petition and require LP & Obi to provide evidence to support their claims. We assert that the election results being uploaded on the IRev are accurately reflected in the respective INEC forms. The scores represented in these results reflect the true outcome of the presidential election, without any misrepresentation or manipulation. All results being uploaded come from polling units where elections were duly conducted, and the scores of all candidates, including the petitioners, have not been altered or misrepresented in any way. INEC also deliberately refused to quote figures in their reply for Benue State. They no longer want to repeat the scores they announced in Abuja. The polling unit results should match what is on IRev, right, and what is on IRev should match what was announced in Abuja, right? Obi’s team has stated that they have forensic reports to prove this. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 32 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 68 & 69 reads: We maintain that the scores obtained by LP & Obi were unlawfully added to the scores of Tinubu by INEC. In a deliberate attempt to conceal these scores, INEC uploaded blurred results that favored LP & Obi on the IRev. We respectfully request the Honorable Court to deduct the unlawful scores that were added to Tinubu's score and credit the legitimate scores obtained by LP & Obi. We further state that upon the deduction of these unlawful scores added to Tinubu's score, LP & Obi will have the highest number of votes in the election, as evidenced by the Forensic Report. INEC’s reply: We deny the allegation in paragraph 68 of the petition and state that the scores of the Petitioners were not reduced or added by INEC to the scores of the APC & Tinubu, as alleged or at all. INEC did not upload any blurred results in favor of LP & Obi on the IRev to conceal them. Furthermore, INEC adopted the results from its counterpart copies issued to political party agents in the collation of the election results as they were available. As for paragraph 69 of the Petition, we deny the prayer of LP & Obi for the deduction of non-existent unlawful scores added to the APC & Tinubu and for non-existent votes or scores to be credited to the LP & Obi’s scores, as it lacks any basis. We will urge the Honorable Court to disregard their prayers during trial. We assert that there are no scores to deduct from the APC & Tinubu’s scores, and LP & Obi, who did not poll the highest number of votes cast in the election, cannot be declared the winner of the election. APC’s reply: We hereby deny p68 and 69 and maintain that the scores of LP & Obi were neither reduced nor added to the scores of APC & Tinubu. The alleged blurred results on IREV, even if they existed, were not uploaded to conceal the result of any candidate. Moreover, the results uploaded on the IREV were still readable and did not affect the outcome of the election, as the hard copies of the results were available with INEC. The assertion by LP & Obi that they won most lawful votes is false and unfounded. The VP of LP & Obi did not perform well at the polls and could not even win his polling unit. Furthermore, Obi narrowly escaped being defeated in his own Polling Unit unlike Tinubu who not only convincingly won in his Polling Unit, overwhelmingly won the election across the whole country and rightfully declared the winner and returned elected. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny paragraphs 68, 69, of the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of the facts alleged therein. We state that the results being uploaded on the IRev are the results as contained in the respective INEC forms, and they reflect the actual outcome without any misrepresentation or manipulation. All the results uploaded are from Polling Units where elections were duly conducted, and the scores of all the candidates, including LP & Obi, have not been tampered with, reduced, or falsely represented in any manner. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 33 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 70 & 71 reads: We assert that if the results of polling units, wards, local governments, and states are accurately tabulated and calculated in accordance with the Electoral Act and the Regulations and Guidelines for elections, it will become evident that we won the election. We intend to rely on an inspection report of the electoral materials carried out pursuant to the orders of this honorable court. We plead the orders made by this honorable court and shall rely on them during the trial. We will present evidence to demonstrate that, based on the correct polling unit result transmitted electronically and supported by accreditation on BVAS, we won the election. To substantiate our claim, we shall rely on the inspection reports as well as forensic expert analysis conducted in accordance with the orders of the court. INEC’s reply: Our response to p70 of the petition is that the results of the election have been accurately tabulated and reflected in the result forms as required by the Electoral Act and regulations. We assert that LP & Obi were the second runner up in the election, as evidenced by the result forms which have been specifically pleaded. They did not meet the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner. We dispute any alleged inspection report conducted by the LP & Obi as ordered by the court that suggests otherwise, and we consider it false and concocted. We also reject paragraph 71 of the petition, as we maintain that LP & Obi did not win the election. The correct polling unit result uploaded to the IRev, supported by the accreditation on the BVAS, was taken into consideration in the results as announced by INEC. APC’s reply: The Respondent states in p70 and 71 that from the results of the Polling Units, Wards, Local Governments, States, and the overall results as obtained from the BVAS can /will only show that Tinubu & Shettima won the election and not LP & Obi as claimed. Hence there is no need to deduct any votes nor recompute the total figures. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny paragraphs 70 & 71, of the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of the facts alleged therein. We state that the results being uploaded on the IRev are the results as contained in the respective INEC forms, and they reflect the actual outcome without any misrepresentation or manipulation. All the results uploaded are from polling units where elections were duly conducted, and the scores of all the candidates, including LP & Obi, have not been tampered with, reduced, or falsely represented in any manner. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 34 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 72 & 73 reads: Revised: We affirm that the votes cast in a polling unit should not exceed the total number of accredited voters in the BVAS. We intend to rely on forensic reports of the election materials to prove that the votes cast in the polling units in Ekiti State, Oyo State, Ondo State, Taraba State, Osun State, Kano State, Rivers State, Borno State, Katsina State, Kwara State, Gombe State, Yobe State and Niger State exceeded the number of voters accredited on the BVAS in those states. Additionally, we contend that the computation and declaration of the result of the election, based on the uploaded results, did not comply with the legitimate process for computation of the result and was biased against us in the following states: Rivers, Lagos, Taraba, Benue, Adamawa, Imo, Bauchi, Borno, Kaduna, Plateau, and others. To establish our case, we shall present evidence that the votes recorded for Tinubu were not a correct reflection of the votes scored by the candidates in those states during the Presidential election. INEC’s reply: Revised: We admit the portion of paragraph 72 of the Petition stating that votes cast at a polling unit should not exceed the total number of accredited voters in the BVAS. However, we deny all other statements contained in the said paragraph. Regarding the alleged polling units in Ekiti State, Oyo State, Ondo State, Taraba State, Osun State, Kano State, Rivers State, Borno State, Katsina State, Kwara State, Gombe State, Yobe State and Niger State where it is claimed that the number of votes cast exceeded the number of accredited voters on the BVAS, we deny such allegations and put the Petitioners to strict proof. We further deny paragraph 73 of the Petition and maintain that the votes recorded for Tinubu, as reflected in the uploaded results and INEC’s copy, are an accurate reflection of the votes scored by the candidates in the stated states during the Presidential election. We assert that the votes cast in those states, including Rivers, Lagos, Taraba, Benue, Adamawa, Imo, Bauchi, Borno, Kaduna, Plateau or other states of the federation, were properly tallied and the outcome of the election was not tampered with. APC’s reply: We deny the allegation made in paragraph 72 of the petition by LP & Obi that the votes cast in the polling units in Ekiti State, Oyo State, Ondo State, Taraba State, Osun State, Kano State, Rivers State, Borno State, Katsina State, Kwara State, Gombe State, and Yobe State exceeded the number of voters accredited on the VAS used in those states. LP & Obi are required to provide the strictest proof of this allegation. We also deny p73 of the petition and request that LP & Obi provide strict proof of their allegations. We assert that the computation and declaration of the election results based on the uploaded results and the votes recorded in favor of Tinubu in Rivers State, Lagos State, Taraba State, Benue State, Adamawa State, Imo State, Bauchi State, Borno State, Kaduna State, Plateau State, and other states of the federation complied with the legitimate process for computation of the result, and did not prejudice LP & Obi in any way in these states. Tinubu & Shettima’s The respondents hereby deny the unfounded allegations contained in paragraph 72 of the petition concerning Ekiti, Oyo, Ondo, Taraba, Osun, Kano, Rivers, Borno, Katsina, Kwara, Gombe, Yobe, and Niger States. We maintain that the votes cast in those States did not exceed the number of voters accredited to vote at the election. The true state of affairs regarding the presidential election is reflected in the polling unit results and the register of voters, not in the fabricated forensic report submitted by the petitioners. As for paragraph 73, the respondents deny the vague assertions made in relation to the 10 listed States and the unspecified State described as "OTHER STATES OF THE FEDERATION." We assert that LP & Obi's unfavorable outcome was due to the reaction of the electorate and not the computation process. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 35 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 74 & 75 reads: We assert that INEC violated its own regulations in declaring the result of the election. At the time of the announcement, the scanning, uploading, and transmission of the totality of the Polling Unit results were not yet fully completed in accordance with the requirements of the Electoral Act. The results and details recorded on form EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D, and EC8E, which formed the basis of the declared result, did not comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC's Regulations governing the process of accreditation, voting, counting, recording of votes, and uploading to INEC's IRev Portal and the backend virtual server installed to ensure a uniformed process. INEC’s reply: INEC asserts that it duly complied with its Regulations in announcing the result of the election and denies the assertion in paragraph 74 of the Petition to the contrary. The full upload of Polling Unit results on the IRev Portal does not invalidate the declaration of the election results. Furthermore, INEC denies the allegation in paragraph 75 of the Petition and affirms that the results and details recorded on the Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D, and EC8E, which formed the basis of the declared result, were the product of due compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC's Regulations mandating the process of accreditation, voting, counting, recording of votes, and uploading to the IRev Portal using the BVAS. APC’s reply: We state in p74 of the petition that there is no statutory requirement for real time uploading of results and INEC did not in any way violate its own Regulations when it announced the results of the election in the entire polling units across the federation. The results and details recorded by INEC on the forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E which formed the basis of the declaration of result made in favor of Tinubu is the product of compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s Regulations mandating the process of accreditation, voting, counting, recording of votes and uploading to the IRev Portal and the backend server (though not in real time) to ensure a uniform process contrary to the allegation made by Obi & LP in p75. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: The respondents hereby deny and refute paragraphs 74 and 75 of the petitions and challenge the petitioners to provide conclusive evidence to support the assertions made therein concerning certain polling units described as "the polling units", "those polling units", and so on. We state categorically that there were no instances of over-voting or any substantial breach of electoral regulations that could have materially affected the outcome of the election. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 36 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 76 & 77 reads: We further state that when the purported scores recorded in the polling units where the above instances of over-voting occurred and deduced from the alleged votes obtained by Tinubu and on which INEC based the hurried declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the election, the margin of the purported lead between Tinubu and Obi will be far less than the number of voters who ought to legitimately vote in those polling units. We plead and shall at trial rely on Form EC40G(iii) issued by INEC. We also state that instances of over-voting in the conduct of the presidential election occurred more places than stated on the Form EC40G(iii). We shall rely on the report from BVAS accreditation in the polling units to prove this in court. INEC’s reply: We deny the allegations in paragraph 76 of the Petition and state that there were no votes that needed to be deducted from the scores of Tinubu as there were no instances of over-voting that affected the declared scores. The claim by LP & Obi that the margin of lead would be significantly reduced if alleged deductions were made based on PVC collection is baseless. INEC followed the Electoral Act 2022 and its Electoral Guidelines and Manual in declaring the results of the election. As for paragraph 77 of the Petition, we also deny the allegations and state that there were no cases of over-voting in more places than those listed on Form EC40G(iii). LP & Obi are required to provide strict evidence to support their claims. APC’s reply: We deny paragraph 76 of the petition and put LP & Obi to the strictest proof of the allegation contained therein. Furthermore, we state that in any polling unit where over-voting was ascertained to have occurred by INEC in the conduct of the election, the affected votes were duly deducted from the vote of all the parties that participated in the said election with Tinubu still emerging as the winner of the election, as the basis for his return. We state, contrary to the assertion in paragraph 77 of the petition, that the state where the issue of over-voting occurred in the conduct of the election can only be confirmed by examining each of the affected polling units if the petitioners provided the particulars in their pleadings. However, no such trackable particulars have been provided by LP & Obi which ought to be documented in Form EC40G alluded to. All votes affected by over- voting were deducted as required by the Electoral Act, 2022, and Tinubu still won by the lawful votes cast. Petitioners are put to the strictest proof of the allegation as no BVAS report is incorporated in the petition as presently constituted. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: The respondents strongly deny and refute paragraphs 76 and 77 of the petitions and demand that the petitioners provide conclusive evidence to support the vague assertions made therein concerning certain polling units described as "the polling units", "those polling units", and so on. We state unequivocally that there were no instances of over-voting or any substantial breach of electoral regulations that could have materially affected the outcome of the election. Contrary to paragraph 76, Tinubu asserts that there is no proximity or nexus between him and Obi in the declared result of the presidential election. This is because Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the PDP came second, while Peter Obi came a distant third. We contend that the petitioners' quest for comparison of votes between Tinubu and Obi is far-fetched and lacks any basis in fact or law. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 37 LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs: 80, 81 & 82 reads: GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election. Our contention is that in an election to the position of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the determination of the outcome will not only be based on the count of votes for each candidate but will also follow the guidelines set out in sections 133 and 124 of the 1999 Constitution. To be declared the winner, a candidate must have received the highest number of votes in the election, have obtained at least one-quarter of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of all states in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and not have been previously declared and returned as elected. We are specifically relying on the result announced by INEC for the FCT, Abuja. INEC’s reply: We admit p80 and 81 but wish to clarify that because there were more than two candidates contesting the election, a candidate can only be declared the winner if they receive the highest number of votes cast and have at least one-quarter of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. We dispute the other claims made in p81 of the Petition and affirm that Tinubu not only received the highest number of lawful votes cast, but also had at least one- quarter of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of all states in the Federation and the FCT, Abuja. As such, Tinubu was rightfully declared and returned as elected. Regarding paragraph 82 of the Petition, we state that Tinubu, who satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the election, was duly declared as such, and therefore, a second election is not necessary in this instance. APC’s reply: In response to p80 of the petition, we state that the result of the election which returned Tinubu as the elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was ascertained and confirmed after counting of lawful votes of each of the candidates. We further state that the election and the return of Tinubu as the elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria followed the provisions of Section 133 and 134 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). We admit paragraph 81 of the petition only to the extent that the Presidential Election was contested by more than two (2) candidates and that a winner shall be declared only if he scores the highest number of votes cast at the election and has not less than one- quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation and the FCT, Abuja. We state that Tinubu scored majority of lawful votes cast at the Presidential election and satisfied the Constitutional requirement/threshold across the Federation and was duly declared and returned as the elected President of the FRN. Tinubu & shettima: We deny the claims made in paragraphs 81 & 82 of the petition and challenge the petitioners to provide evidence to support their allegations. We argue that the petitioners' interpretation of sections 133 and 134 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is incorrect and contrary to the clear wording and intent of these provisions and the Constitution as a whole. We contend that section 133 of the Constitution is irrelevant in this case since, LP & Obi themselves have shown, there were more than two candidates at the election. Furthermore, the respondents state that Nigeria's democratic process does not rely on an Electoral College jurisprudence, particularly with regards to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The respondents also refute the petitioners' claim that a candidate must obtain 25% of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, to be validly elected as President of Nigeria. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 38 GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs: 83 & 84 reads: We will further contend at the trial that the declared result of the election did not comply with the Electoral Act, 2022 and INEC’s Regulations established for scrutinizing the result of the election at the Polling Units and the Collation Centers, hence, upon a proper computation of the result of the election, it is Peter Obi who scored a majority of lawful votes cast at the election and satisfied the Constitutional requirements in that regard. We plead and shall rely on the Reports of election compiled from the inspection of the election materials pursuant of the Order of the Honorable Court, copies of the result forms as well as INEC’s IRev portal which is part of the electronic storage on the backend server. We shall further contend that from Inception, INEC established 3 basic technologies which mandated and guaranteed a credible and transparent election. These technologies were the BVAS and IRev. This was pursuant to the powers conferred on INEC to deploy technology in the conduct of elections which included electronic transmission of results and recording of accreditation. These were to endure transparency and guarantee the integrity of the electoral process and the election. INEC’s reply: We deny p83 as false, state that, and shall at trial contend that the declared result of the election duly complied with the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s Regulations established for scrutinizing the result of the election at the Polling Units and the Collation centers. INEC reiterates that the proper computation of the result and declared result reveals that the LP & Obi lost the election and did not score majority of the lawful votes cast nor satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared winner of the election. We admit p84 of the Petition only to the extent that INEC deployed the use of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the IRev for the election. We deny any electronic result collation system or Portal, and state that the technology deployed for the purpose of the election was to ensure transparency and guarantee the integrity of the electoral process and were fully utilized at the election. APC’s reply: In response to p83 of the petition, we state that the election and the result of the Presidential election was conducted and declared in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the relevant guidelines for the conduct of the election. We state in response to p84 that the use of BVAS in the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election and other processes/procedure involved or that follows therein is to ensure transparency and accountability which the INEC ensured that it abide by. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: Contrary to p83 of the petition, the presidential election and the result that emanated from it were in substantial compliance with the principles of the Electoral Act as well as the Regulations and Manuals for the election. After INEC properly computed the results at the election Tinubu emerged the winner and LP & Obi 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 and FCT. As such, not only 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. (No reply found in the document for p84). PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 39 GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES (Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election). LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 85 & 86 reads: The BVAS was designed to capture and upload the number of accredited voters and to keep accurate record of the accreditation process, including when successful and unsuccessful, to confirm the number of accredited votes and the results from the polling units. If the number of votes cast as depicted on the Form EC8A exceeded the number of accredited voters captured in the BVAS machines, over-voting occurs, therefore nullifying that polling unit result. The BVAS was equally designed and deployed by INEC to transmit the polling unit results to Amazon Web Services Virtual server and web portal (IRev) to receive the results of the election from the polling units. By this process, tampering with the result of the election was to be detected where the physical result deviated from the uploaded version. At the stage of collation of results at the Registration Areas, the polling unit results were to be directly transferred to that level of Collation and were to be used in the Collation process. INEC’s reply: We admit p85 of the Petition, but only to the extent that INEC utilized the BVAS and the IRev for the election. We deny the existence of any electronic result collation system or portal and assert that the technology used during the election was intended to ensure transparency and maintain the integrity of the electoral process, and that it was utilized to its fullest capacity. As for p86 of the Petition, we deny that the BVAS was intended to transmit Polling Unit results directly to any alleged AWS Virtual Server. Rather, the BVAS was designed to transmit Polling Unit results to the e-transmission application, which then grouped, sorted, and uploaded the results according to the relevant state, LG areas, wards, and polling units on the IRev. We also state that INEC duly complied with the procedure for verifying and confirming the numbers of accredited voters, as stated in the collated result, by making the BVAS system available to the ward collation agents as received from the Presiding Officers of the Polling Units. APC’s reply: We state in response to paragraphs 85 & 86 of the petition that the use of BVAS in the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election and other processes/procedure involved or that follows therein is to ensure transparency and accountability which the INEC ensured that it abided by, in the conduct of the Presidential election held on 25th February 2023. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny the allegations in p85 and 86 of the petitions and challenge the petitioners to provide convincing evidence to support their claims. It is our position that the technical challenges encountered during the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election, such as those mentioned in the paragraphs, are common occurrences in any technological process, and do not in any way invalidate the credibility of the electoral process. We assert that the conduct of the election was in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act of 2022. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 40 GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES (Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election). LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 87 & 88 reads: The Collation Officer or Returning Officer shall collate and announce the result only after a verification and confirmation that the number of accredited voters stated in the collated result are correct and consistent with the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from the Polling Unit, with the use of the electronic technology employed by INEC. Additionally, the Collation Officer must ascertain in the same process that the collated results are correct and consistent with the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from the Polling Units, the Returning or Collation Officer shall resolve same with the original of the disputed collated result for each polling unit where the election is disputed, the smart card reader or other technology device used for the accreditation of voters in each Polling Unit where the election is disputed for the purpose of obtaining accreditation data directly from the smart card reader or technology device. Data of accreditation recorded and transmitted directly from each Polling Unit where the election is disputed; and the voted and result of the election recorded and transmitted directly from each Polling Unit where the election is disputed. INEC’s reply: In response to p87 of the Petition, the accreditation of voters and confirmation of the numbers as stated in the collated results were duly complied with during the election. This was achieved through the availability of the BVAS system to the Ward collation agents, which they received from the Presiding Officers of the Polling Units. In response to p88, INEC asserts that in the event of a dispute during the collation process concerning what transpired at the Polling Unit, and if there are no electronically transmitted results, the Collation or Returning Officer is obliged to use and adopt INEC's copy of the Polling Unit results, or hard copies issued to security agents and political party agents, in that order. These procedures are specified in the Regulations and Guidelines, as well as the Manual for Election Officials 2023. APC’s reply: We state in response to paragraphs 87 & 88 of the petition, that the use of BVAS in the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election and other processes/procedure involved or that follows therein is to ensure transparency and accountability which the INEC ensured that it abided by, in the conduct of the Presidential election held on 25th February 2023. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny the allegations in p87 and 88 of the petitions and challenge the petitioners to provide convincing evidence to support their claims. It is our position that the technical challenges encountered during the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election, such as those mentioned in the paragraphs, are common occurrences in any technological process, and do not in any way invalidate the credibility of the electoral process. We assert that the conduct of the election was in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act of 2022. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 41 GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES (Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election). LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 89 & 90 reads: As provided in INEC’s Regulation, “an election result shall only be collated if the Collation Officer ascertains that the number of accredited voters match the number recorded in the BVAS and votes scored by Political Parties on the result sheet is correct and match with the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from the Polling Unit as prescribed in these Regulations and Guidelines.” As part of the electronic result collation, INEC deployed the Collation Support and Result Verification System (CSRVS) which is an Excel sheet kept by the CSRVS officer and instantly reflect the uploaded results from the Forms EC8 series. Ultimately, the Collation Officer and the CSRVS will compare their respective entries and their agreement reflects the result of the election. INEC’s reply: In response to p89 & p90, INEC asserts that in the event of a dispute during the collation process concerning what transpired at the Polling Unit, and if there are no electronically transmitted results, the Collation or Returning Officer is obliged to use and adopt INEC's copy of the Polling Unit results, or hard copies issued to security agents and political party agents, in that order. These procedures are specified in the Regulations and Guidelines, as well as the Manual for Election Officials 2023. We further state that at the election, the Collation Officer duly verified and ascertained the number of accredited voters as recorded in the BVAS which was delivered to them by the Presiding Officers at the Polling Units at their Ward and therefore had no reason not to proceed with the collation of results. We admit paragraph 90 of the petition. APC’s reply: We state in response to p89 of the petitions that the use of BVAS in the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election and other processes/procedure involved or that follows therein is to ensure transparency and accountability which the INEC ensured that it abide by, in the conduct of the 2023 Presidential election. We put the Petitioners to the strictest proof of averments contained in p90 of the petition. We state further that INEC was empowered to collate the results of the election electronically and update the results from time to time as provided by the Electoral Act. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny the allegations in p89 and 90 of the petitions and challenge the petitioners to provide convincing evidence to support their claims. It is our position that the technical challenges encountered during the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election, such as those mentioned in the paragraphs, are common occurrences in any technological process, and do not in any way invalidate the credibility of the electoral process. We assert that the conduct of the election was in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act of 2022. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 42 GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES (Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election). LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 91 & 92 reads: The IRev was designed to exhibit exactly the uploaded Polling Unit results for the public view and it is mandatory for the Presiding Officer to snap the image of the Form EC8A using BVAS, which is uploaded to the portal for public viewing. On 25th of February 2023, INEC did not upload the Presidential election results from the polling units as required by the law. INEC only decided to upload the results of the National Assembly elections from the same polling units using the same BVAS that were used to conduct the Presidential election. We shall rely on Vanguard Online newspaper report of March 4, 2023 and Thisday Online newspaper of 5th March 2023. INEC’s reply: We admit p91. In response to p92, (read screenshots). APC’s reply: In response to p91 and 92, we state that INEC uploaded results of the Polling Unit in compliance with the provisions of the law. We state further that INEC did not only upload the results of the President election but also that of the National Assembly. The Presiding Officers snapped and sent images of Form EC8A which was frequently uploaded in its portal. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny the allegations in p91 and 92 of the petitions and challenge the petitioners to provide convincing evidence to support their claims. It is our position that the technical challenges encountered during the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election, such as those mentioned in the paragraphs, are common occurrences in any technological process, and do not in any way invalidate the credibility of the electoral process. We assert that the conduct of the election was in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act of 2022. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 43 LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 93 & 94 reads: the effect of the foregoing is that contrary to the mandatory requirement that all uploads shall proceed to INEC’s backend server through BVAS, they received data into an unscheduled device. Accordingly, 3 main portals namely 2.inecelectionresults.ng, inecelectionresults.ng, and cvr.inecnigeria.org/results. As at 16:20pm in 19tth of March 2023, while the first two disclosed that results from 165,975 out of 176,846 Polling units nationwide had been uploaded. The third showed that 168,803 out of 178,846 polling Units nationwide had been uploaded, the second website is the IRev recognized by law while the others are not. We will rely on computer printouts from the above websites. INEC’s reply: We deny paragraph 93 of the Petition and state in response that we did not receive data into an unscheduled device either as alleged or at all. The URL 2.inecelectionresults.ng, referenced in paragraph 93 of the Petition is not a public portal but used by INEC Officials to view results during performance testing on the result transmission system. The IRev portal , inecelectionresults.ng, The Continuous Voters Registration (CVR) portal is the cvr.inecnigeria.org/results. This is also hosted on the AWS Web Cloud Service. We used the CVR infrastructure as a fail over and back up for the e- transmission system when the technological glitch occurred. The CVR portal is not a result viewing portal but directs any person who visits the portal to the IRev. We deny p94 of the Petition and want LP & Obi to prove it in court, APC’s reply: We would like LP & Obi to prove their assertions in paragraph 93 of the petition and we state that INEC did not receive election data from any unscheduled device but from its back-end server. We state further to the above that the portals being portrayed by LP & Obi were concocted in the opaque imagination of the Petitioners. Contrary to the statement in p94, we state that INEC has designed its website where all the results and information about INEC and elections conducted are stated and uploaded and it is only INEC that can identify the true and authentic website it designed as there are many concocted websites like the one portrayed by LP & Obi in the petitions that were surreptitiously created by hackers and fraudulent persons to deceive and mislead innocent Nigerians. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny the allegations in p93 and 94 of the petitions and challenge the petitioners to provide convincing evidence to support their claims. It is our position that the technical challenges encountered during the conduct of the 2023 Presidential Election, such as those mentioned in the paragraphs, are common occurrences in any technological process, and do not in any way invalidate the credibility of the electoral process. We assert that the conduct of the election was in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act of 2022. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 44 GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES (Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election). LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 95 & 96 reads: We plead that, surprisingly, the result of the National Assembly elections conducted simultaneously on the same day and time using the BVAS machines from the same polling units were successfully uploaded while those of the Presidential election weren’t uploaded and were cosigned to devices not contemplated by the Electoral Act 2022 and the Regulations of the conduct of the election. As a result, we believe that the standard procedure for collating results, particularly comparing the electronic results and data directly transmitted with the physical copies of the Forms EC8A before collation, was not followed during the Presidential election. The results were not transmitted using IRev in a manner that would ensure the integrity of the election, as mandated by the law. INEC’s reply: In response to p95, we affirm our previous statement regarding the technological malfunction that occurred during the real-time uploading of the election results and the Amazon CloudTrail logs of the e-transmission system. In response to p96, we will demonstrate during the trial that the standard procedures for collating results were properly and significantly adhered to during the election. Therefore, the election results were transmitted using IRev as required by law, ensuring the security and integrity of the election. APC’s reply: We state contrary to the statements in paragraph 95 of the petition that all the results of the elections (Presidential and National Assembly) gradually uploaded, as available internet bandwidth link to the portal of INEC could support, using the electronic devices contemplated by the provisions of Electoral Act. We state that the issue of transmission of results of National Assembly results was not an issue before this Honorable Court and all allusion to National Assembly Election are irrelevant. Contrary to the statement contained in paragraph 96 of the petition, we state that the required procedure in the collation of results of the Presidential election was substantially followed by the [$ Respondent. The 4th Respondent states further that the results of the Presidential election held on 25" February 2023 was transmitted as contemplated by relevant statutory provisions. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny paragraphs 95 & 96 and challenge the petitioners to provide irrefutable evidence to support their claims. Furthermore, we assert that the technical issues that arose during the Presidential election held on February 25, 2023, were typical glitches that are often associated with technological advancements and are not entirely immune to errors and malfunctions. Nonetheless, we maintain that the election was conducted in substantial conformity with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022. * T. Ezeike Here INEC 1. Admitted that they could not electronically upload results in real time due to technology failure….UNTRUE because National Assembly results were transmitted at the same time from same devices to same IREV portal. 2. Claimed that they were able to transmit/upload results onto the IREV as mandated by law: UNTRUE because INEC could not upload the results as they already admitted in the earlier paragraph. 3. Claimed they were able to Collate results at RA/Ward according to the law…. UNTRUE because according to the law particularly 48(a) of INEC Regulations, the hard copy of the results must be compared with the uploaded results from the Polling Unit to validated it before Collation Comment: INEC is contradicting itself badly and appear to be confused in their various responses PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 45 GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES (Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election). LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 97 & 98 reads: INEC, through a written communication, sought to excuse non-compliance by claiming that there were glitches in the electronic system which prevented them from uploading the results of the Presidential election from the polling units to the IRev portal on the day of the election. We plead that this written communication be taken into consideration. Additionally, we contend that the alleged glitches in the electronic system, which was set up and managed by INEC, were used as a strategy to unjustly credit unlawful votes to APC & Tinubu, and to nullify the clear advantage that LP & Obi had gained through the legitimate exercise of voting rights by the electorate. INEC’s reply: With regards to paragraph 97 of the Petition, we reject the claim that there was any breach of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, the Regulations, and Guidelines governing the conduct of the election. We maintain that the written communication issued by INEC, explaining the technological glitches that prevented the real-time upload of the election results onto the IRev, is not a justification but rather an explanation of the events that occurred. We intend to rely on the Amazon Cloud Trail logs of the e-transmission system as evidence. We also restate that the technological issues encountered did not significantly impact the outcome of the election, as alleged by LP & Obi. In response to paragraph 98 of the Petition, we dispute the claim that the technological glitches were a deliberate scheme to credit unlawful votes to APC & Tinubu. Furthermore, we reiterate that the technological glitches referred to above did not significantly affect the results of the election, as alleged by the LP & Obi. APC’s reply: We dispute the statement in paragraph 97 and emphasize that INEC did not seek to excuse itself from compliance with the Electoral Act 2022. We assert that INEC complied substantially and demonstrably with the Electoral Act 2022 during the conduct of the Presidential election. In response to paragraph 98 of the Petition, the Respondent refutes the claim that any unlawful votes were credited to APC & Tinubu by INEC. The Respondent maintains that all the votes credited to Tinubu were lawful votes cast by most Nigerians who exercised their right to vote and elected Tinubu as the President of Nigeria. We challenge LP & Obi to present convincing evidence to substantiate their claims in court. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: we deny paragraphs 97 & 98 of the Petition and challenge the petitioners to provide irrefutable evidence to support their claims. The Respondent asserts that the technical issues encountered during the Presidential election held on February 25, 2023, were common glitches that typically arise with technological advancements and are not entirely immune to errors and malfunctions. Nevertheless, the Respondent maintains that the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 46 GROUND 3: CORRUPT PRACTICES (Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election). LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 99 & 100 reads: We intend to use the results obtained from the IRev portal and other copies of the Form EC8A to demonstrate that a significant number of votes were wrongly credited to Tinubu. In addition, we plan to rely on various press statements issued by INEC, explaining the process that led to the unlawful allocation of votes to Tinubu. During the trial, we will use all investigations, forensic, expert reports, and spreadsheets mentioned in this Petition, which we incorporate as part of the Petition. INEC’s reply: In response to paragraph 99 of the Petition, we refute the claim that substantial votes were unlawfully credited to Tinubu. The results obtained from the IRev portal and other copies of Forms EC8A will demonstrate that only lawful votes were credited to them. Furthermore, we deny the assertion that our leadership made numerous press statements to explain any alleged crediting of massive unlawful votes to Tinubu. LP & Obi’s claim in this regard is unfounded and false. Regarding paragraph 100 of the Petition, we maintain that the alleged investigation, forensic expert reports, and other spreadsheets referenced in the Petition are fabricated and contrived to promote the Petitioners' claims and deceive the court. APC’s reply: We dispute the claim made in paragraph 99 and affirms that Tinubu received valid and lawful votes during the Presidential election conducted by INEC. The declaration and return of Tinubu as the winner of the election followed the due process stipulated for the conduct of the election. We argue that LP & Obi are not entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition because Tinubu & Shettima were qualified to contest the election and the votes they received were valid and lawful and cannot be discounted. Tinubu received most of the lawful votes cast at the election and obtained not less than 25% of the lawful votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the states of the Federation, including the Federal Capital Territory. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We reject the claims made in paragraph 99 of the petition and challenge LP & Obi to provide concrete evidence to support their allegations. We maintain that all the votes recorded and credited to Tinubu were legitimately obtained during the polls and were not unlawfully credited to him by anyone. Furthermore, we argue that none of the documents mentioned in paragraphs 100 of the petition entitle LP & Obi to any of the reliefs sought in the petition, and that they cannot substantiate the allegations made in the petition. We also contend that it was only Obi who obtained implausible percentages of votes in his stronghold areas, especially in the South-Eastern States of Nigeria, where he obtained 95.24% of the votes cast in Anambra State, 93.91% in Enugu State, 77.13% in Imo State, 79.83% in Ebony State, and 88.40% in Abia State. In contrast, Tinubu scored only 2.41% in these states. We argue that such a discrepancy in the vote percentages indicates that LP & Obi’s claims are unfounded and lack credibility. I’ll keep saying that Obi’s team did a good job in the petition. The case is solid and no judge in this world would read the petition and replies and not frown at INEC and APC. While I don’t trust the judiciary, I also want to comfort myself with the fact that there would be at least 5 senior judges presiding over this case, and they can’t all vote yes or vote no at the same time, but I hope that majority stand for justice. For sure the legal team excellently covered their grounds well in presenting a rock solid petition. They demonstrated in-depth understanding of the novelty convergence of technology and law. I have no doubt that our courageous Judges will rise to the occasion to deliver justice that is fair and seen to be. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 47 LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraphs 101 reads: At the trial, we shall rely on all INEC’s electoral, and all other necessary documents used for the conduct of the Presidential election, including: (See screenshots for a full list). INEC’s reply: We shall at the trial of this Petition rely on all relevant documents, judgments, court processes, polling documents and all other relevant documents used for the conduct of the election as referred to in this Reply, including but not limited to: • Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E used at the election. • The Voters Register used for the election. • All the Forms used for the election. • List of Party Agents • BVAS Report on accreditation. • Report of the ICT Department of INEC EC11A and EC11C in respect of Shettima’s nomination. • Shettima’s Letter of Withdrawal dated 6lh July 2022 • APC’s Letter dated 10th July 2022 notifying the • INEC of Shettima’s withdrawal as candidate for Borno Central Senatorial District election. • CTC Judgment in Suit No: FHC/ABI/CS/1454/2022 • CloudTrail of the Amazon Web Services of the e- transmission application • The Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022 • Manual for Election Officials, 2023 • All other relevant documents as may be necessary for the purpose of defending the Petition. APC’s reply: We state that LP & Obi are not entitled to the reliefs contained in paragraph 102 of the petition because Tinubu & Shettima are qualified to contest the election held on 25th February 2023 hence the votes ascribed to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents are valid and lawful votes, hence, the lawful votes of the 2nda n d 3rd Respondents cannot be discountenanced. Tinubu scored most of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25% of the lawful votes cast in each of at least 2/3 of the states of the Federation. The Federal Capital Territory for all intents and purposes is a state of the Federation. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: None of the documents stated in paragraphs 100 and 101 of the petitions entitle LP & Obi to the grant of any of the reliefs sought in the petition nor can they validly sustain the pleadings in the petition. The respondents shall also contend that of all the presidential candidates at the election, it was only Obi who now cries wolf that scored incredible percentages of votes in his catchment areas, particularly, the South-Eastern States of Nigeria, where he scored 95.24% of the votes cast in Anambra State, 93.91% in Enugu State, 77.13% in Imo State, 79.83% in Ebony State and 88.40% in Abia State. Against these whopping scores credited to Obi in the South- Eastern zone, Tinubu scored 2.41% in Abia State, 0.8. 3% in Anambra State, 130. 3 in Ebony State, 10. 5% in Enugu State and 14.21% in Imo State. (Read more replies on Screenshots). PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 48 LP & Obi’s Petition Paragraph 102 reads: PRAYERS We respectfully request the following reliefs from this honorable court: 1. Declare that Tinubu and Shettima were not qualified to contest the Presidential Election held on February 25th, 2023. 2. Declare that all votes credited to Tinubu in the election are wasted votes, due to the non-qualification/disqualification of Tinubu and Shettima. 3. Declare that based on the remaining valid votes (after discounting the votes credited to Tinubu), Obi obtained a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had no less than 25% of the votes cast in each of at least 2/3 of the states and FCT, Abuja, thereby satisfying the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the February 2023 Presidential election. 4. Declare that Tinubu, having failed to score one-quarter of the votes cast at the Presidential election in the FCT, Abuja, was not entitled to be declared and returned as the winner of the Presidential election held on February 25th, 2023. INEC’s reply: Contrary to LP & Obi’s prayers in paragraph 102, we contend as follows: • The Petition is frivolous and ought to be dismissed. • Tinubu & Shettima, with the information available to INEC were at the time of the election qualified to contest same. • The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and was not marred by any corrupt practices. • Tinubu scored the highest number of the lawful votes cast and satisfied the requirements of the Constitution to be rightly declared and returned as the winner of the election. • INEC denies that LP & Obi are entitled to the Prayers sought in Paragraphs and shall therefore urge the Honorable Court to dismiss the Petition as same is a misadventure, abusive of the court process, • speculative, vague and consist largely of falsehood and unfounded allegations. APC’s reply: We state in response to paragraph 102 of the petition that INEC validly declared and returned Tinubu as the winner of the Presidential election held on 25th February 2023 having scored the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election and satisfied the constitutional requirements. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We pray the Honorable 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. Concerning the reliefs being claimed by the petitioners in paragraph 102 of the petition, the respondents contend that: • The reliefs do not avail them. • The reliefs are at large. • The reliefs demonstrate the academic nature of the petition. • The reliefs are ungrantable. • In couching the reliefs, LP & Obi intentionally muddled, altered, edited, interfered with, and adulterated the provisions of the Constitution. • The reliefs are self-defeating. • This Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to countenance the reliefs. • Arising from the foregoing, coupled with the circumstances of this case, the respondents plead that LP & Obi are not entitled to any of the reliefs stated in paragraph 102 of their petition. • Shun 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 the judicial process. • At trial, respondents shall rely on, and hereby plead all the documents in support of every averment contained in this reply, as well as those incidental thereto. Tinubu & Shettima's reply is not clear to me. What's meant by "This Hirable Court has no jurisdiction to countenance the reliefs" Saying the court is unfit to deliver the prayers? We should head straight to the SC? Is there something about the Supreme Court we don't know? I wrote honorable court, not hirable court. What they are saying is that, the appeals court is not qualified to hear this tribunal case. Here INEC : 1. Consider the petition to be frivolous and believe it should be dismissed….UNTRUE because the petition is brought according to the electoral act and based on the required grounds of petition. 2. Argue that Tinubu and Shettima were qualified to contest the election based on the information available to INEC at the time…TRUE because INEC has no power to disqualify any candidate so submitted to it by a political party. The locus to question qualification in a competition, after screening, lay on the competitor. 3. Asserted that the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and was free from corrupt practices….UNTRUE because INEC admitted as such in their earlier pleadings and there are abundant evidences of corrupt practices. 4. Claimed that Tinubu received the highest number of lawful votes and fulfilled the constitutional requirements to be declared the rightful winner of the election….UNTRUE because the results declared by INEC having not complied with the laws by way of validation are therefore invalid. Moreover the industrial scale corrupt practices even from the illegitimate results in the IREV shows clearly Tinubu did not obtain the highest lawful votes cast. 4. Denies that LP and Obi are entitled to the reliefs sought in their petition….UNTRUE because if the judges agree with any of the ground of petition the reliefs so sought are bound to be granted. Comment: Here LP/Obi is pleading clearly to be declared the winner in this election. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 49 PRAYERS (Continued from paragraph 102): If prayers 1, 2 and 3 cannot be granted, may be determined that Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast in the election for the office of the President of FRN, and therefore, the declaration and return of Tinubu as the winner of the election are unlawful, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever. • That it be determined that based on the valid votes cast at the presidential election, Obi scored the highest number of votes cast and not less than one- quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation and FCT, Abuja and ought to be declared and returned as the winner of the Presidential election. • We want an order directing INEC to issue the Certificate of Return to Obi as the duly Returned President of the FRN. • That it be determined that the Certificate of Return wrongly issued to Tinubu by INEC is null and void and be set aside. • If prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4 cannot be granted, let the Presidential election conducted on February 25, 2023, be null and void on the ground that the election was not conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and 1999 constitution. We want an order canceling the Presidential Election conducted on February 25th, 2023, and mandating INEC to conduct a fresh election for the office of the President of the FRN. INEC’s reply: Contrary to LP & Obi’s prayers, we contend as follows: • The Petition is frivolous and ought to be dismissed. • Tinubu & Shettima were at the time of the election qualified to contest. • The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and was not marred by any corrupt practices. • Tinubu scored the highest number of the lawful votes cast and satisfied the requirements of the Constitution to be rightly declared and Returned as the winner of the election. • We deny that LP & Obi are entitled to the Prayers sought in Paragraphs 102(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Petition and shall therefore urge the Honorable Court to dismiss the Petition as same is a misadventure, abusive of the court process, speculative, vague and consist largely of falsehood and unfounded allegations. APC’s reply: We state that LP & Obi are not entitled to the reliefs contained in paragraph 102 of the petition as Tinubu & Shettima are qualified to contest the election held on 25th February 2023 hence the votes ascribed to Tinubu & Shettima are valid and lawful votes and cannot be voided. Tinubu scored most of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25% of the lawful votes cast in each of at least 2/3 of the states of the Federation.We further state that it is not reasonable to expect Tinubu who won majority of lawful votes and one quarter of votes cast in not less 29 out of 36 states of the federation to be denied his victory and subjected to seek fresh votes of all voters in all the 36 states and Abuja at a great cost and expense due to a run-off simply because he supposedly did not secure one quarter of the votes cast in FCT at the 25' February, 2023 presidential election. We state that LP & Obi are not entitled to all the alternative reliefs sought in paragraphs 102 (3), (4), (5). Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: In terms of national acceptance of the 2nd respondent as a political figure, titan, and maestro and better that Obi in every sphere and index, and this is clearly known to Nigerians and demonstrated by the result of the election. While Tinubu scored not less than 25% of the votes cast in 29 States, cutting across the different geo-political zones, LP & Obi managed to only score 25% in 16 States, in restricted geo-political zones. We pray the Honorable 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. THE END