PETER OBI & Labour Party Versus INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA This is INEC’s response to Obi’s petition paragraphs 57 & 58. At the last sentence, INEC wrote “…state & FCT offices.” This part is important in addressing the controversial 1999 constitution that says: Specifically, Section 134 (2) of the Constitution says: “A candidate for an election to the Office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election: (a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and (b) he 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 Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.” Our constitution certainly requires 25% of votes in the FCT for Tinubu or any presidential candidate to be declared president-elect. This proves that INEC knows that Tinubu did not meet the constitutional requirement to be the president but want candidates to go to court instead. As Compiled by Oluchi Obi’s petition Paragraph 1 reads: the petition is presented by Mr. Peter Obi & Labour Party and will be addressed as the petitioners. INEC’s response: Admitted. APC’s response: Admitted. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: We disagree because Peter Obi has no locus standi to present this petition. He was not a registered member of Labour Party 30 days before the date fixed for the PRIMARY election. ———------------———————- Obi’s Petition Paragraph 2 reads: The petition is in respect of the election for the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which held on Saturday, 25th of February, 2023. INEC’s response: Admitted. APC’s response: Admitted Tinubu & Shettima’s response: The entire petition is not properly constituted as the petitioners are challenging the election of 25th February, 2025 even in states where they won. (yes, 2025 was written on the petition). ——-----------——————— Obi’s Petition Paragraph 3 reads: Peter Obi as a duly registered voter had a right to vote and indeed voted at the said election which took place on 25th February, 2023. INEC’s response: we deny paragraph 3 of the petition and put the petitioners to the strictest proof thereof. APC’s response: (same with INEC’s response) we deny paragraph 3 of the petition and put the petitioners to the strictest proof thereof. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: They Narrated a long story of how Peter Obi left APGA despite swearing not to leave. On March 23rd, 2023, Peter Obi and Labour Party filed a petition at the Court of Appeal against APC, INEC, Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Shettima Kashim. Let’s review what Peter Obi sued for and how the other parties responded. There are 102 paragraphs in the petition which the parties had to respond to one by one. — In APC’s reply (pg 9) they denied ALL paragraphs except 1, 2, 6, 11, 17, 18, and 19 of the petition. — Tinubu & Shettima’s response (pg 19), they denied ALL paragraphs and reliefs in the petition except 11, 12, 17 and 19 of the petition. — In INEC’s response (pg 6) they denied ALL paragraphs except 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the petition. —————----------————— For the sake of knowledge sharing, I will publish all paragraphs day by day with each party’s response so we can learn which arguments are likely to be pushed at the tribunal hearing. Shall we? PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA Obi’s petition Paragraph 1 reads: the petition is presented by Mr. Peter Obi & Labour Party and will be addressed as the petitioners. INEC’s response: Admitted. APC’s response: Admitted. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: We disagree because Peter Obi has no locus standi to present this petition. He was not a registered member of Labour Party 30 days before the date fixed for the PRIMARY election. ——————----------————- Obi’s Petition Paragraph 2 reads: The petition is in respect of the election for the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which held on Saturday, 25th of February, 2023. INEC’s response: Admitted. APC’s response: Admitted Tinubu & Shettima’s response: The entire petition is not properly constituted as the petitioners are challenging the election of 25th February, 2025 even in states where they won. (yes, 2025 was written on the petition). ——————----------——— Obi’s Petition Paragraph 3 reads: Peter Obi as a duly registered voter had a right to vote and indeed voted at the said election which took place on 25th February, 2023. INEC’s response: we deny paragraph 3 of the petition and put the petitioners to the strictest proof thereof. APC’s response: (same with INEC’s response) we deny paragraph 3 of the petition and put the petitioners to the strictest proof thereof. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: They Narrated a long story of how Peter Obi left APGA despite swearing not to leave. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA - PT2 Obi’s petition paragraph 4 reads: Peter Obi’s petition was duly sponsored by Labour Party’s petition on whose platform Peter Obi contested the election. LP & Obi shall at trial rely on Peter Obi’s nomination documents filed with INEC. INEC’s response: We deny paragraph 4 because we put the petitioners to the strictest proof. APC’s response: We vehemently deny paragraph 4 of the petition and state that Peter Obi was not duly and validly nominated or sponsored by LP and as such could not have been sponsored by LP to contest the election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: We deny paragraph 4 because Tinubu has always been a most consistent politician who has not shifted political tendency and alignment whereas, Peter Obi has consistently crisscrossed different political parties. ------------------------------------------- Obi’s petition paragraph 5 reads: Peter Obi was a candidate at the election and had the right to be returned as the duly elected candidate at the election. INEC’s response: We admit paragraph 5 only to the extent that Obi was a candidate at the election, but we deny that he has a right to be returned as elected, not having polled most of the lawful votes cast at the election. APC’s response: Obi had no right to be voted for at the questioned election based on his party-hopping and ticket-shopping conduct, and LP is jointly foreclosed likewise for fielding him having aided and abetted Obi through sponsorship racketeering which paraded him as its presidential candidate. (These were APC’s exact words). Tinubu & Shettima’s response: Obi swore that he will never leave APGA and that he will die with APGA. Later, he left APGA to join the PDP and later left PDP to join LP almost on the eve of the primary election held on May 30th, 2022. Peter Obi was the VP-Presidential candidate of the PDP in 2019 and he was always in court to represent the PDP presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA - PT3 Obi’s petition paragraph 6 reads: LP is a duly registered political party under the law of FRN and was the political party that sponsored Obi as its candidate to contest the election. INEC’s response: Admitted with no additional comments. APC’s response: We admit paragraph 6 only to the extent that LP is a duly registered political party under the laws of the FRN but deny that LP validly sponsored Obi as the candidate to contest the election. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: we are stating that LP has never recorded success in any previous election in Nigeria on a national or significant scale. They only won 6 out of 100 senatorial seats and less than 10% of the 360 seats in the House of Representatives. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA - PT4 (SIMPLIFIED). Obi’s petition paragraph 7 reads: LP is a body corporate with perpetual succession and in the sponsorship of Peter Obi and the conduct of the election thereof, acting through its members duly appointed as agents at all stages of the election, namely, at the Polling Units, the Ward Collation Centers, the LG Collation Centers, the State Collation Centers and at the ultimate collation center at the Federal Level in Abuja. INEC’s response: All political parties intending to sponsor candidates in the election were required to submit lists of their agents to INEC. The guidelines issued by INEC require all political parties to submit the list of their agents between the 21st of December 2022 and the 20th of January 2023 via an online portal. Some of the political party agents whose names were on the list submitted to INEC were absent at their polling units while some others who were present neglected to participate in the election process. APC’s response: We admit only to the extent that LP is a body corporate with perpetual succession. Also, LP & Peter Obi did not appoint agents at all the stages of the election, be it at the polling units, ward collation centers, local government collation centers, and state collation centers. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: In the history of electoral democracy in Nigeria prior to 2023, LP has only ever won 1 governorship seat in Nigeria. In 2023, LP was only able to win 1 governorship seat in Abia state. (Repeats the same statement as INEC & APC), that LP & Peter Obi did not appoint agents at majority or in all the polling units across the FRN. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA - PT5 Petition paragraph 8 reads: The Agents performed their assigned and statutorily designated roles at the election. These roles included observing and monitoring the process of arrival of election materials where they were supplied by INEC and leading to and including the process of accreditation, voting, counting of votes, and announcement of results of the election. These agents where the election proceeded in due form, upon INEC’s agents duly entering the results in the result sheets at the Polling Units, signed and collected duplicate copies of the result sheets. INEC’s response to 8: LP did not have Polling Agents in all the Polling Units across Nigeria as they only submitted a list of 134,874 Polling Agents which is 41,972 short of the 176,846 polling units across Nigeria. INEC denies that LP polling agents were present at all Polling units across Nigeria. APC’s response: We deny paragraph 8 because LP did not appoint agents at all the stages of the election, be it at the polling units, ward collation centers, local government collation centers, and state collation centers. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: (Repeats what INEC & APC said), LP did not appoint agents at majority or in all the polling units across the FRN. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA - PT 6 Peter Obi’s petition paragraph 9 reads: In appropriate cases, the Agents raised complaints about anomalies where they occurred and reported such complaints to designated officers of the LP and INEC. INEC’s response: We deny that any complaints about anomalies were reported to our officers as alleged in P. 9 of the petition and put the petitioners to the strictest proof. APC’s response: We deny paragraph 9 and therefore, put the petitioners to the strictest proof of the assertion contained in the said paragraph. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: In response to the generalized statement in paragraph 9 of the petition, LP agents did not report and could not have honestly reported any incidence of anomalies to INEC as the election was held in substantial compliance with the principles of the Electoral Act. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 7 Peter Obi’s Petition paragraph 10 reads: LP & Peter Obi, in accordance with the prevailing law, have the right to lodge this petition to the court constitutionally vested with the jurisdiction to receive and entertain election petitions in challenge to the proceedings at and at the outcome of the election to the office of the President of the FRN. INEC’s response: We admit paragraph 10 of the petition. APC’s response: We repeat and adopt paragraphs 3-7 hereof, and state that Peter Obi not being a member of LP does not possess the right to contest the presidential election held on 25th of February 2023, and thus not entitled to lodge this petition to challenge the outcome of the election. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: Contrary to paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 10, amongst other paragraphs of the petition alluding to the petitioners’ right to present this petition anchored on Peter Obi’s membership of LP to have validly contested the election, we insist that the petitioners have no right both under the constitution and the electoral Act, to present this petition. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 8 Peter Obi’s Petition paragraphs 11 & 12 reads: INEC is vested with powers and functions assigned by the constitution and the Electoral Act of 2022, which includes the organization and conduct of prescribed elections in the territory known as the FRN including the office of the President. It was in that capacity that they organized and conducted the election for the office of the President of the FRN, the subject matter of this petition. 12. In the discharge of its duties in the conduct of the election, INEC did so through its regular ad-hoc staff who functioned at the designated venues and stages of the election. INEC’s response: We admit paragraphs 11 and 12 and state in addition that the election was successfully conducted in accordance with the requirements of the constitution of the FRN. APC’s response: Admits paragraphs 11 and 12 with no additional comments. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply admits paragraphs 11 and 12 with no additional comments. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 9 Peter Obi’s petition paragraph 13 & 14 reads: Bola Ahmed Tinubu, although not duly sponsored and not qualified, contested along with Peter Obi and others for the office of the President of the FRN. Tinubu was returned by INEC as the winner of the election. 14. Kashim Shettima, although not duly sponsored and thus not qualified, was nominated by Tinubu and APC as the VP candidate of Tinubu and consequently contested on a joint ticket with him and was returned in the election hereby challenged as VP of the FRN. INEC’s response: We deny that Tinubu was not duly sponsored and not qualified to contest the election as alleged in paragraph 13. Tinubu was duly returned as the winner of the presidential election. We admit paragraph 14 of the petition only to the extent that Kashim Shettima contested on a joint ticket with Tinubu and was returned as a winner along with him. Shettima was duly nominated and sponsored to contest the election. APC’s reply: We deny paragraphs 13 and 14 of the petition and shall put the petitioner to the strictest proof of all the spurious allegations contained therein, stating further that Tinubu and Shettima were duly sponsored and eminently qualified to contest the election to the office of the president and VP respectively and returned as winners of the presidential elections. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: Contrary to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the petition, we state that Tinubu is qualified to contest the election and was duly sponsored by APC while his return by INEC as the winner of the election was right, proper, and a manifestation of the democratic plebiscites of Nigerians. Shettima was duly and properly sponsored as the running mate of Tinubu and met all constitutional and statutory requirements. We admit only to the extent that they were duly returned as President- Elect and VP-elect respectively. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 10. Peter Obi’s petition paragraphs 15, 16, 17 & 18 reads: APC is a registered political party under the laws of the FRN which purportedly sponsored Tinubu and therefore participated in the election. 16. LP & Obi are parties interested in the petition. 17. At the conclusion of the scheduled election, the collation of results lasted until the 1st of March 2023 when INEC announced the result and declared the scores of the candidates in the following as contained in Form EC8E (pic 1). 18. Based on INEC’s declaration, the summary of the result disclosed the following (pic 2). From the result, which is being challenged in the petition, INEC declared and returned Tinubu as the presidential election winner and thereafter, issued certificates of return to him and Shettima. INEC’s response: We state that APC is a political party registered under the laws of the FRN which duly sponsored Tinubu and Shettima. We admit that LP & Obi are parties interested in the petition, however, we further state that there other parties that may be affected by the outcome of the petition that has not been joined. We admit p17 of the petition and state that the scores tabulated (Pic 1) are as recorded in Form EC8E. We deny paragraph 18 as it does not accurately summarize the election results or statistics. APC’s response: For p5, APC duly sponsored Tinubu and Shettima who participated and won with a majority of lawful votes cast and were validly declared the winner of the election by INEC. For p16, we deny and state that there are other interested parties to this petition aside LP & Peter Obi. We admit p17 and p18. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: For p17, from the declared results, LP & Peter Obi scored the percentages stated below at the following states at the presidential election (pic 3). For p18, we 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. (No response was provided for p15 & p16). LP & Obi never said we have 934M+ registered voters, their screenshot says 93M+. We are in the critical part of this petition and I need all Obidients to keep an eye on every figures, fact-check and alert the world to what these people are saying. PETER OBI & LP v INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 11 The petition is based on 4 grounds. Ground 1 (p20): Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election. In paragraphs 21, 22 & 23: LP & Peter Obi state that a candidate for election shall nominate another person as his associate for his running for the office of president as his VP. On the 14th of July 2022, Kashim Shettima, whilst still being a Senatorial Candidate for Borno Central Constituency, knowingly allowed himself to be nominated as the VP candidate to Tinubu on the platform of APC. Shettima was a candidate nominated by APC for the office of Senate in the Borno Central Senatorial Constituency until July 15, 2022, when he signed the INEC senatorial notice of Withdrawal of Candidate form EC11C. INEC’s response: We admit that a candidate for election to the office of the President shall nominate another person as a VP, but contrary to the other statements from LP & Obi, Tinubu duly nominated Shettima as his VP candidate. We deny that Shettima was at the time of his nomination as a VP candidate also a candidate for Borno Central Senatorial District election. We further state that at the time of Shettima’s nomination as the VP candidate, he was no longer the Senatorial Candidate having withdrawn his nomination by a letter dated July 6th, 2022, addressed to INEC and received on the 13thof July 2022. APC’s response: We deny p20 of the petition and state further that, Tinubu was eminently qualified to contest the presidential election. The election conducted by INEC was valid. Tinubu was duly elected by majority of lawful votes casted at the election. We will contend that the grounds of the petition which lumped complaint of corrupt practices with non-compliance are grossly incompetent, frivolous and an abuse of court process. Shettima’s nomination was done lawfully and in compliance with the constitution. We deny paragraph 22 & 23. Tinubu and Shettima’s response: (Repeat the same statement as APC from P20-23). PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 12 The petition was based on 4 grounds: Ground 1: Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26 of Obi & LP Petition states: As at the time Shettima became a VP candidate, he was still… complaint of corrupt practices with non- compliance are grossly incompetent, frivolous and an abuse of court process. Shettima’s nomination was done lawfully and in compliance with the constitution. We deny paragraph 22 & 23. Tinubu and Shettima’s response: (Repeat the same statement as APC from P20-23). PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 13 Obi’s petition is based on 4 Grounds: Ground 1: Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election. In Obi’s petition paragraphs 27, 28, 29 – Obi & LP will prove at the trial that the purported sponsorship of Tinubu and Shettima by APC was rendered invalid by reasons of Shettima knowingly allowing himself to be nominated as the VP candidate while he was still a senatorial candidate. We further state that for this reason, the votes purportedly recorded for the 2nd respondent at the Presidential election were/are wasted votes and ought to be disregarded. We plead that Tinubu was also not qualified to contest for election to the office of the President as he was fined the sum of $460,000 for an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking imposed by the us District Court. INEC’s response: Contrary to p26 & p27, Shettima withdrew on July 6th, 2022 as dated in his letter, and was not nominated in more than one Constituency. In p28 and 29, we are not aware of the alleged conviction of Tinubu as stated in the referenced paragraphs of the petition. APC’s response: We deny p27 and state that Shettima has not in any way by his nomination as a VP candidate of the respondent allowed himself to be nominated in more than one constituency. We deny p28 & p29 and further state that Tinubu was at the time of the election qualified to contest for election to the office of the President of the FRN. Tinubu was never at any point fined the sum of $460,000 for an offense involving dishonesty or any other offense in the US. Tinubu was not a party in the case and the case was not a criminal case that could have resulted in a criminal conviction. Rather, it was a civil forfeiture proceeding against the funds in various bank accounts opened in the name of Bola Tinubu with First Heritage Bank and City Bank N.A. Tinubu & Shettima’s response: Tinubu has never been found guilty/convicted of any criminal offense in respect of which a fine of $460,000 or any amount whatsoever was imposed on him by any authority or person including the US District Court. We state that no criminal charge was filed against Tinubu. He was not arraigned and did not make a plea to any count in a charge for allegations of crime. He did not go through a criminal trial; he was not convicted for any criminal activity; no sentence, imprisonment or fine was imposed on him. The case was an action against certain assets and the suit was settled amicably. The US, through its embassy in Nigeria sent a letter dated Feb 4,2003, addressed to the then Inspector General of Police and confirmed that upon their record check of the FBI, Tinubu has no criminal arrest, wants or warrants. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 14 Obi’s petition is based on 4 Grounds: - Ground 1: Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election. - Ground 2: The election of Bola Ahmed Tinubu was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022. Paragraph 33, 34, 35 & 36 of Obi’s petition reads: In accordance with the powers conferred on INEC by the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022, and the Manual of Election Officials 2023, we will prove that INEC was mandatorily required to prescribe and deploy technological devices for the accreditation, verification, confirmation and authentication of voters and their particulars as contained in INEC’s regulations. For purpose of compliance with the above-stated mandatory requirements, INEC deployed BVAS for the February 25th election for the purpose of accreditation, verification, confirmation and authentication of voters. We will rely on the assurance in the press conference hosted by Yakubu Mohammed the INEC chairman. INEC’s reply: We admit that in accordance with powers under the constitution, we published Regulations and guidelines for the Conduct of elections 2022. We admit that we issued and published Manual of Election Officials, 2023. However, the manuals provided basic operational instructions and guidance on processes and procedures for the conduct of elections in Nigeria. Since 2011, INEC has made concerted efforts to improve quality of elections using appropriate technological devices to enhance the ease, credibility, transparency, and integrity of the electoral process, which includes EVR, PVC, BVAS and PWD for persons with Disabilities. The press statement from Mahmood that Obi & LP are referring to is only to assure the public of INEC’s commitment and determination to continue the use of technology and technological devices to enhance the quality of transparency, integrity and credibility of the electoral process. APC’s reply: In response to p33 & p34, the mandatory bindiness of the regulations and guidelines is at the discretion of INEC. We state that p35 and p36 are facts within the personal knowledge of LP & Obi and are challenged to prove it. Shettima & Tinubu’s reply: We would like Obi & LP to prove their statements in paragraphs 33, 34, 35. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 15 Obi’s petition is based on 4 Grounds: - Ground 1: Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election. - Ground 2: The election of Bola Ahmed Tinubu was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022. Paragraphs 37, 38, 39 of Obi’s petition reads: At the conclusion of the election at each polling unit, the presiding officer was mandatorily required to electronically transmit or transfer the result of the Polling Unit directly to INEC’s collation system. The officer was required to use the BVAS to upload a scanned copy of the EC8A to the iRev in real time. If the BVAS fails to function at any polling unit, a new BVAS will be deployed to ensure that the accreditation process is in line with the electoral process. If the second BVAS malfunctions, election shall be canceled and another election rescheduled within 24 hours. (Describes the voting steps in p39). INEC’s reply: As explained in INEC’s Manual for Election Officials 2023, the BVAS is designed to upload the accreditation data, scan, and submit the result of the polling units through the e-transmission system which is then uploaded to the IRev portal. The application on IRev is designed to automatically sort the uploaded results by the type of election state, LGA, ward and Polling unit. The uploaded data or images captured and automatically stored on the BVAS device requires data services. Without data, the BVAS will work offline and upload to the portal when data service is available. We will prove in court that the design of the BVAS system to work offline does not affect the integrity of uploading accreditation data to the iREV portal. APC’s reply: We are saying that there is no law that mandates Presiding Officers to electronically transmit/transfer results from the polling units directly to the INEC’s collation system, neither is the presiding officer mandated by law to use BVAS to upload a scanned copy of the Form EC8A to INEC’s portal IRev in real time. BVAS is not for electronic transmission but a transfer of documents which may only be utilized to forward documentation to the INEC’s IRev but not in real time. INEC’s regulations did not specify real time electronic transmission or any time lag whatsoever when the transmission must be done. The important document in the election is the polling units results Form EC8A signed by the Presiding Officer and party agents, and it is used for collation of results, and each party is expected to have their own copy at the end of the election at polling units. The BVAS is essentially for the accreditation of voters, but any other glamorous portrayal of BVAS upload as a validator of results is not supported by INEC. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We want LP & Obi to prove their statements in paragraphs 33- 44. Furthermore, we 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 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, ink and the BVAS machine. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 16 Obi’s petition is based on 4 Grounds: - Ground 1: Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election. - Ground 2: The election of Bola Ahmed Tinubu was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022. LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 40, 41, 42 & 43 reads: Based on the accreditation process, the voter meets an INEC agent who then request for the voter’s PVC. If the voter doesn’t have it, he will not be allowed to vote; but if the voter has a PVC, the INEC agent will do the following (describes the accreditation process with BVAS step by step). After complying with the verification process, the verified voter will be further scrutinized before voting. The voter cannot be allowed to vote if the BVAS fails to identify them. After the accreditation and casting of votes by voters, the Presiding Officer will count the votes at the Polling Unit and enter the votes scored by each candidate in the INEC Form EC8A. Then the Presiding Officer signs and stamps the form followed by candidates or their Polling Agents to sign if available. INEC’s reply: We state that INEC Manual for Election Officials 2023 sets out detailed guidelines on the use of BVAS for accreditation of Voters (explains the step-by- step process of BVAS accreditation). We will prove at trial that the role of the BVAS in the accreditation process is for verification and authentication of the Voter’s details, and the primary source of accreditation remains the Voter’s Register for each Polling Unit, which is resorted to after the Voter’s PVC has been verified and the voter has been authenticated using BVAS. We admit that if the BVAS fails to authenticate or verify a voter, they won’t be allowed to vote. We also admit to the role of the Presiding Officer after accreditation and voting in each Polling unit. APC’s reply: (No response to paragraphs 40- 43 found in the document). Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We want LP & Obi to prove their statements in paragraphs 33- 44. Furthermore, we 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 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, ink and the BVAS machine. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 17 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 44, 45 reads: The presiding officer would then deliver copies of the result sheet to the Party Agent and Police Officer if available. Then, the Polling Unit results are delivered to the Collation Officer who then collate the results in the form provided by INEC. This process is repeated for all LG collation centers until it gets to the Constituency Collation Officer. We state that, apart from using the BVAS to capture accreditation at all PU, the BVAS is also mandatorily used to upload the information or data imputed into it by INEC’s Presiding Officer at each PU after voting is completed and results are recorded and announced. INEC’s reply: We admit to the role of the Presiding Officer after accreditation and casting of votes at the polling units. In response to p45, we are saying that the only mode of collation prescribed by INEC is the manual collation system prescribed in paragraphs 50-55 of the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022. The manual also provides details and functions of the BVAS in terms of transmitting results. APC’s reply: In response to p45, there is no requirement in the Electoral Law or Regulations for uploading of results before the commencement of collation of results at the Ward level, neither does it invalidate the election if the uploaded forms are not available on the IRev before collation is done. The most important thing is for the form EC8A to be signed by the Presiding Officer and polling agents before taken for collation at the Ward level according to section 91, 92 and 93 of the INEC regulations, which states that Form EC8A and EC60E are the building blocks for any collation of results and not the documents on IRev. We also state that the collation and declaration of winners is based on the hard copy from not the uploaded ones as alleged by Obi & LP. We state further that in the events leading up to the collation of results after the election, INEC’s Chairman Mahmud Yakubu informed the public of the network glitched experienced by INEC which made uploading of results from polling units impossible in real time as promised. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: Furthermore, we 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 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, ink and the BVAS machine. PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 18 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 46, 47 reads: We state that as part of the technological architecture for the 2023 General Election, & Presidential Election, INEC utilized virtual servers on Amazon Wed Services (AWS) for hosting/storage of the General and Presidential election results. We may invite a staff of Amazon to establish this and other related facts. The Amazon Cloud Platform is the world’s most comprehensive and broadly adopted platform which enables users such as large organizations and govt agencies like INEC to effectively manage data in real time and lower costs. (Inserts a link to AWS website). INECs reply: We admit to paragraph 46 of the petition only to the extent that it used Amazon Web Services (AWS) for hosting election results transmitted to the IRev portal, because it’s considered to be secure, trustworthy, and reliable. We also state that the detailed procedure on the use of BVAS and its functions and importance as it relates to transmission of results are provided in the Manual for Election Officials 2023 and the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022. APC’s reply: We deny p46 and state that technological devices also come with disadvantages which was experienced at the election. The alleged Amazon Web Services experienced slow/poor network connection and downtimes which hindered swift upload of the election results to INEC’s servicer due to many data that were uploaded in the election. This is in addition to cyber- attacks/hacking attempts on the INEC portal to compromise the process. For p46, 47, 48, and 49 of the petition, we state that the IRev is the only legally authorized platform by INEC where the entire election results will be displayed and accessed by the general public and not the Amazon Cloud Platform as falsely claimed by LP & Obi. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny p46 & 47 of the petition on the utilization of the virtual services of Amazon Web Services (AWS) for the hosting/storage of INEC’s data and we want LP & Obi to prove it in court. We are saying that using a virtual server on Amazon Web Services does not make it a participant at the election. AWS is not an agent/official of INEC. Apart from AWS, there are other hosting service providers which are globally recognized (goes on to list 10 other hosting providers). PETER OBI & LP VS INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 19 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 48, 49 & 50 reads: INEC’s data captured and or generated during the Presidential Election and stored on the AWS data using cloud computing technology is accessible. We also state that the result of the election displayed/stored on IRev should be the same with the result of the election stored in the Virtual Servers on the Amazon Cloud Platform. INEC created various levels of collation at the Registration Areas, LGA, State Constituencies and the Federal Constituency were only to be accepted for collation if the Collation Officer ascertains that the number of accredited voters corresponds with the number captured in the BVAS. INEC’s reply: We state that data stored on the AWS is not accessible. The only storage portal accessible is the IRev portal which contains the National Electronic Register of Election Results under section 62 (2) of the Electoral Act 2022. The authentic and statutorily prescribed storage on which results can be accessed for the purpose of the determination of the petition or review of the election is the IRev portal. We shall contend that any alleged results or data generated by Obi & LP either from an alleged AWS data warehouse or any other storage cloud howsoever is false and not to be countenanced for the purpose of the election. We deny p49 and state that Polling Unit election result is stored on the virtual servers on the AWS as alleged by the Petitioners. The only Polling Unit Results are those uploaded on IRev which is hosted by AWS. APC’s reply: For 47, 48, and 49 of the petition, we state that the IRev is the only legally authorized platform by INEC where the entire election results will be displayed and accessed by the general public and not the Amazon Cloud Platform as falsely claimed by LP & Obi. We would like to state that we don’t know or monitor the internal operations of INEC, but we would like Obi & LP to prove their statements in paragraph 47 & 48 of their petition. INEC is not required by law to transmit results from the polling units to the Collation officer in the Collation Officer in the upper level of collation. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny p46 & 47, 48 & 49 of the petition on the utilization of the virtual services of Amazon Web Services (AWS) for the hosting/storage of INEC’s data and we want LP & Obi to prove it in court. We are saying that using a virtual server on Amazon Web Services does not make it a participant at the election. AWS is not an agent/official of INEC. Apart from AWS, there are other hosting service providers which are globally recognized (goes on to list 10 other hosting providers). Contrary to paragraph 48 of the petition, the AWS does not have a separate content from the IRev Portal. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 20 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 51 reads: In the event of a dispute during the electoral process, the results transmitted electronically from the lower levels would be used to determine the outcome of the collation process. However, if there were no transmitted results from a polling unit or any level of collation, it would be impossible to resolve any disputes. On the day of the election, LP & Obi's agents and other political parties' agents walked away from the national collation center in protest. This was because the Collation Officer blatantly refused to resolve their disputes as mandated by the Electoral Act of 2022, which was captured in a video clip in the media. INEC’s reply: We state that State Collation Officers were not required by the Guidelines to electronically transmit results from states to the National Collation Center. Additionally, INEC has the authority to use duplicate hard copies of collated results issued by the Nigerian Police Force and agents of Political Parties to resolve disputes over election results. We argue that LP & Obi's objections at the National Collation Center relating to the verification of Polling Units results on the IRev, which should have been raised and dealt with at the Ward Collation level and not at the National Collation Center. We further state that LP's agents became disruptive and walked out of the National Collation Center upon being informed by INEC's National Collation Officer that their complaints were inappropriately raised. They claimed that any alleged video clip or reportage from LP & Obi's agents disputing the results at the National Collation Center without the ruling of the National Collation Center on the matter and the decision to continue with the collation process was incomplete and manifestly unreliable. INEC intended to contend at trial that the evidence presented by LP & Obi was insufficient to support their claims. APC’s reply: In response to p51, we argue that INEC substantially followed all the outlined steps. They explained that the Collation Officer could not view the polling unit results on the IRev due to network glitches that INEC had already informed the Political Parties about. As a result, it was impossible to upload the results in real-time. We also claim that LP & Obi had a limited number of agents in only a few polling units during the presidential election. In a well- orchestrated move to discredit the collation process, LP's agents and a few other political parties' agents began challenging the final National Collation. This was because their respective candidates were clearly losing based on the results declared by INEC so far. At the National Collation Center, the LP representatives made an embarrassing show of bullying a National Collation Officer to abort the collation midway, to frustrate the conclusion of the election. We emphasize that such unpatriotic demands could have grave consequences for the democratic and legal order of the FRN, which LP & Obi desperately sought to govern through the ballot. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: We deny paragraphs 50 of the petition and would like the petitioner to prove their statement. We also argue that a successful electronic transmission directly from the polling unit is not a requirement for the acceptance or validity of results for collation. The Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022 and the Manual for Election Officials, 2023 prescribe the manual mode of collation and account for circumstances where electronic transmission may not be possible. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 21 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 52 reads: the copies of Form EC8A, which were scanned and uploaded through the BVAS to INEC's portal IRev, should have reflected all other results originating from the Polling Units. They maintained that the results instantly uploaded at the earliest moment should have been the standard for assessing other results subsequently advanced by INEC in the process of collation, leading to the final segment, which was the declaration of the election's result. Furthermore, LP & Obi contend that INEC's regulations and the Electoral Act 2022 were manifestly violated during the Presidential Elections held in the Polling Units. They claim that the results were not fully uploaded on the IRev at the time of the purported declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the election. This created room for the manipulation of the results by INEC officials. INEC’s reply: We admit p52 only to the extent that Form EC8A scanned and uploaded through the BVAS is to reflect the result which originated from the polling units. However, we note that the BVAS for each polling unit are submitted to the Ward Collation Officer for the corresponding ward, and that the Ward Collation Officer is responsible for scrutinizing the accreditation data and scanned result in the BVAS for verification of the contents of the Form EC8A for the polling unit. We are satisfied that this verification process was duly carried out during the election and the results were collated after the verification, as required by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC's regulations. APC’s reply: Contrary to p52, the copies of Form EC8A that were scanned and uploaded to the INEC result viewing portal IRev were the same results cast in favor of Tinubu in the presidential election. Tinubu & Shettima’s reply: In regards to the announcement and compilation of election results, the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections in 2022, as well as the Manual for Election Officials in 2023, explicitly mandate the use of manual collation and dictate the precise procedures for delivering the BVAS and original copies of each form in a tamper-evident envelope to the various levels of collation, accompanied by security personnel and willing polling unit agents. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 22 LP & Obi’s petition paragraphs 53 & 54 reads: INEC violated its regulations and the Electoral Act of 2022 during the Presidential Election by not fully uploading the polling unit results on the IRev before declaring Tinubu the winner. This allowed for manipulation of the results by INEC officials. INEC continued to upload the results even after the petition was filed and we argue that it is a violation of the Electoral Act and INEC's regulations. INEC’s reply: we state that the Presiding Officers duly uploaded the Polling Unit results onto INEC's e-transmission system at the end of the election, but some of the results were not visible on the IRev portal due to technical glitches experienced on the day of the election. There was no violation of INEC's regulations or the Electoral Act of 2022, as alleged, and therefore no room for manipulation of the results. In response to p54, we refer to a court judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Emeka Nwite for the case of Labour Party v INEC in January 2023. The court ruled that under the provisions of the Electoral Act of 2022, INEC has the discretion to determine how election results are to be transmitted and is not mandated to use only electronic means. The case number is FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022. APC’s reply: In response to p53 of the petition, we vehemently deny the allegations and assert that the non-instantaneous upload of the polling unit results to IRev in real-time without any other supporting evidence could not have significantly impacted the outcome of the Presidential Election, which was widely acclaimed as free, fair, and credible by numerous local and international observers. Moreover, on the day of the election, all political parties, including LP agents and APC, were provided with copies of the Form EC8A results for their respective areas of operation. Tinubu & Shettima's reply: We deny paragraphs 53 of the petitions and challenge the LP & Obi to provide strict proof of the allegations contained therein. Additionally, we state that successful electronic transmission directly from the polling unit is not a precondition for the acceptance or validity of results for collation. Furthermore, INEC is not prohibited by any law, regulation, or manual from using or relying on other means of result transmission besides the BVAS. The complaints made in paragraph 53 regarding the transmission of election results through the BVAS are vague and unsupported. PETER OBI & LP v. INEC, APC, BOLA TINUBU & KASHIM SHETTIMA – PT 23 LP & Obi’s petition paragraph 55 reads: Due to INEC's non-compliance with the Electoral Act and specific regulations for the Presidential Election, we argue that INEC's failure to instantly transmit and upload the result of the election electronically to the IRev from the BVAS violated the integrity and safety measures set for the conduct of the election. INEC’s reply: We deny paragraph 55 of the petition as false and unfounded. We affirm that INEC officials duly observed the integrity and safety measures stipulated for the conduct of the election by timeously uploading the results of the polling units. There was no non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022, or the requirements set forth in the regulations for the conduct of the election. The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022, as well as all the Electoral Guidelines and Manual. APC’s reply: We deny the allegations in paragraph 55 of the petition and affirm that INEC substantially complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the requirements and regulations governing the