The Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal has dismissed allegations of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 brought against President Bola Tinubu by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar. In delivering the judgment, Justice Stephen Adah stated that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims of non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 134 and 135 of the Electoral Act. He emphasized that there must be sufficient grounds to establish that there was no substantial compliance with the Electoral Act in the election. The key facts related to the complaints of non-compliance were presented in various paragraphs of the petition, and the respondents denied these allegations. The burden of proof remained with the petitioners to establish their claims as required by the law. The first respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and the second and third respondents, the All Progressives Congress and President Tinubu, also contested the allegations made in the petition.
“The second respondent in his reply to the petition countered all the petitions pleaded in the case of the issue. The third respondent countered the petitioners’ allegations in paragraphs 36, 37, and 40 in his reply to the petition.
“Non-compliance means failure to or refusal to do something that you are officially or statutorily required to do. The Electoral Act 2022 in an explicit manner has laid clear ground on which election can be questioned in Section 134 thereof and Section 135 which looks like a proviso to Section 134.
“For proper appreciation of the intention of the law, Section 134 and 135 of the Electoral Act must be considered together. Section 134 (1) says that an election may be questioned on any of the following grounds-
“A person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election; the election was invalid because of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act.
“And 135 (1) says ‘An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially by the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.”
That said, Justice Adah held that “This ground of non-compliance with the electoral act has been in all our election laws even when we had a parliamentary system of government.”
