The presidential election petition court on Wednesday struck out no fewer than seventeen paragraphs containing allegations of irregularities and corrupt malpractices by Mr. Peter Obi in his petition contesting the declaration of Bola Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.
According to the five-member panels, the paragraphs affected are ruled out on the grounds that they were “vague, imprecise, nebulous and failed to meet the requirements of pleadings”.
Ruling on the preliminary objections, Justice Abba Mohammed emphasized the need for precision in “averments,” asserting that they should be devoid of confusion or ambiguity. He reiterated that the primary purpose of pleadings is to furnish respondents with a comprehensive understanding of the case’s facts to enable effective preparation.
- Continuing, he said “averments must not be general but specific”, citing that “petitioners failed to specify polling units where anomalies occurred or where agents complained of alleged malpractice and irregularities.”
- “They did not specify polling units where election results were not uploaded or where scores attributed to them were reduced or added to Tinubu. They did not show the majority of votes they claimed they had scored.”
The petitioners’ reliance on spreadsheet analysis, inspection findings, and expert reports was questioned by the jurist.
Mohammed insisted that these documents should have been provided to the respondents, allowing them to conduct their own analysis and respond appropriately.
- “The spreadsheet report, inspection results and experts’ reports were not served but only listed as documents to be relied on in adjudicating the petition”, he said.
