Peter Obi Archives

June 24, 2023

37 witnesses missing as Peter Obi, LP rest case against Tinubu

Mr Peter Obi and his Labour Party (LP) closed their petition at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Friday, without presenting 37 of the 50 witnesses promised.

Obi and LP are complainants in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023, challenging the election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the 25 February election.

Respondents in the petition are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The petitioners were given 21 days to prove their case against the respondents before the court.

But as they rested their case on Friday, only 13 witnesses testified. The remaining 37 did not show up.

Earlier, Counsel to the petitioners, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, informed the court that their 12th witness, Yunusa Tanko, was in court to be cross examined by the respondents.

Counsel to the respondents are Kemi Pinhero SAN for INEC, Wole Olanipekun SAN for Tinubu and Shettima, while Lateef Fagbemi SAN represented APC.

The 12th witness (PW12) was Yunusa Tanko, member of LP Situation Room, who testified and some documents were tendered through him.

Being cross examined by INEC, the witness told the court that the results given to them were mutilated and not readable.

When asked by Olanipekun how many party agents his party had during the election, he said over 130,000 while there were 176,974 polling units through the federation.

Tanko was also asked what he wanted the court to do with the 12 states where LP won and what would happen to Atiku Abubakar, who was declared 2nd.

He said that he was challenging the entire results of the election because after four months of the election, the results are still being downloaded from the IreV.

When asked by Fagbemi on why he did not provide the number of unlawful votes, he claimed that their expert had already given evidence on the number of disputed votes.

The respondents tendered through the witness judgments of Federal High Court, with FHC/ABJ/1454/2022, delivered on Jan. 23, 2023, concerning LP vs INEC.

Tendered also was a SC/CV/501/2023, Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26, 2023, between PDP and INEC with three others.

The petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents and reserved their reason in their final written addresses.

The court however admitted and marked the documents as exhibits.

Peter Yari, PW 13 , an adhoc staff of INEC, also gave his evidence.

Counsel for the petitioners, Uzoukwu after the testimony of PW13, informed the court that they are closing their case.

The respondents prayed the court to give them till next week to go home and celebrate the Sallah with their families and come back by July 3 to open their case.

The five-member panel presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until July 3, for the respondents to open their case.

June 20, 2023

INEC to Tribunal: Peter Obi asking for non-existent documents in petition against Tinubu

Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC), Peter Obi, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) has told the Presidential Election Petition Court(PEPC) that some documents requested by Peter Obi, the Labour Party (LP) candidate are non-existent.

INEC made the declaration on Tuesday.

Obi and the Labour Party (LP) are challenging the Feb. 25 election of President Bola Tinubu before the court in a petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023.

Respondents in the petition are INEC, President Tinubu, Vice-President Kashim Shettima and their All Progressives Congress (APC).

Giving evidence before the court, Mr Lawrence Bayode, Deputy Director, ICT at INEC told the court that out of the five documents Obi asked for; two were non-existent, while one was work in progress.

One of Obi’s witnesses, Ms Loretta Ogah, an ICT cloud engineer, said she contested election into the House of Representatives on the platform of Labour Party in Cross River, but lost the election.

Ogah was cross-examined by Mr Wole Olanipekun (SAN), counsel for Tinubu and Shettima.

She told the court that she sued INEC after her loss because the electoral umpire did not list her name on its portal as a result of network failure.

Also cross-examined by Mr Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), counsel for APC, Ogah told the court that glitches did not occur on INEC portal on Feb. 25.

She said she did not know INEC’s password protocol as she was not INEC’s employee.

The court, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, adjourned further hearing till Wednesday.

June 10, 2023

Tribunal throws out Labour Party, Obi’s request to question INEC

Labour Party, Peter Obi, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Saturday dismissed the application filed by the Labour Party and Mr Peter Obi seeking an order to question INEC on the technology it deployed for the conduct of the general elections.

Obi and LP are petitioners in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023 challenging the election which brought President Bola Tinubu into power.

Respondents are the INEC, President Bola Tinubu and Vice president Kashim Shettima and All Progressives Congress (APC).

Ruling on the application, the five -member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani held that it lacked the jurisdiction to grant the request as it was brought outside the pre-hearing session and therefore incompetent.

“It is an afterthought on the grounds that the pre-hearing period to file such an application elapsed on May 22.

“I have not disputed the fact that they did not call the attention of the court during the pre-hearing session.”

“It is for the applicant to take a step towards the hearing of his motion on notice. The court cannot do that for him.

“The petitioners’ counsel are very conversant with the provisions of the law and did not ask for an extension of time.

” They rather seek to employ the right to fair hearing as a magic wand to escape the consequence of their failure to comply with the law and blame the court for its inaction” the court held.

The court also held that the applicants failed to disclose any extreme circumstance that stopped them from filing within the statutory time.

In a unanimous decision, the court stated that motions cannot be heard at the hearing session and as such can be deemed as abandoned.

”Their application is incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it and accordingly, the application is struck out,” the court held.

The petitioners, among other reasons for disputing the outcome of the elections are accusing the electoral umpire of non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

Their concerns also included failure to transmit the results of the presidential election in real-time on the INEC results viewing portal as assured.

In their effort to support the grounds of their petition, the petitioners had asked the court to permit them to question INEC on the technology deployed to conduct the election including the quality of the ICT experts who oversaw the conduct of the election.

In two applications, the petitioners through their lawyer, Patrick Ikweto, SAN, urged the court to order INEC to supply the names and other details of its ICT professionals that deployed electronic devices for the conduct of the election.

Specifically, the petitioners maintained that given INEC’s reply to their petition, it should be compelled to answer 12 questions posed to them.

They asked INEC to specify the date the electoral body conducted functionality tests on the system it deployed for the elections, as well as names and details of those that conducted the test.

They further required INEC to answer the following questions: “Who created/deployed the four (4) Applications Patches/Updates to fix the HTTP 500 error that prevented the e-transmission of the results of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?

“What was the exact time of the occurrence of the technical glitch which prevented the e-transmission of the result of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?

“What time were the technological glitches fixed and or repaired?

“What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev on Feb. 25?

“What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev at the time of the declaration of the Result of the Presidential election on March 1?”

June 6, 2023

Atiku’s witness says Obi did not win Nasarawa

Atiku Abubakar, PEPC, Peter Obi

Peter Obi, the Labour Party (LP) candidate in the February 25 presidential poll did not win in Nasarawa State, Ibrahim Hamza, a witness to PDP and Atiku Abubakar has told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).

The witness, who acted as PDP’s State Collation Agent (SCA) during the election, claimed on Monday that Obi would not have won his state if the election was free and fair.

He claimed to have signed the result sheet under duress, confirmed that by the scores allocated to parties by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Obi won the state.

Hamza said: “I am not happy with the result. I don’t want the court to accept this result. Labour Party cannot come first in Nasarawa State. That is impossible..we have the authentic result. It is with the National Collation Agent (of the PDP).”

When asked if the said National Collation Agent was still alive, the witness said he did not know.

The witness said he signed a clean copy of the result sheet, which he claimed was later mutilated after he had signed, alleging that all the cancellations in the result sheet occurred after he had signed.

Hamza, who was testifying as the 10th petitioners’ witness (PW10), said these while being cross-examined by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), lawyer to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

He told the court that, although he did not know the percentage of votes that Atiku scored in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), he was satisfied that the PDP candidate met all the constitutional requirements and provisions to be returned as the winner of the election.

Under cross-examination by lawyer to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), Hamza said he voted during the election after being duly accredited by INEC officials.

He said election results were duly computed, but we’re not uploaded electronically as required.

The witness, who said his party had agents in all the polling units across the state, said: “It was at the point of uploading that the system failed. It happened not only in my polling units, but also in others around the state.”

Under cross-examination by lawyer to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), Hamza, who said he was not present at all the polling units during the election, told the court that he visited about 50 to 60 polling units in four wards.

Another witness, Abraham David (PW9), while being cross-examined by lawyer to INEC, Abdullahi Aliyu (SAN) said although Atiku scored 15 per cent of the votes in the FCT, he is entitled to be returned as winner, because even Tinubu who did not score 25 per cent in the FCT was declared the president.

David, who said he acted as PDP’s Collation Agent at the FCT, said his party had agents in all polling units who informed him about what happened in their areas.

The witness, under cross-examination by Olujimi, said although he claimed, in his statement, that INEC collated unlawful votes, he failed to include the figure of the votes he claimed were unlawfully collated in his statement.

David, who claimed that INEC officials did not perform their constitutional responsibilities during the election, said he could not identify the said officials by name.

PW 8 Mohammed Madaki, who said it was the law that a candidate who did not score 25 per cent in the FCT cannot be declared president, noted that since Atiku did not score 25 per cent in the FCT, he was not entitled to be declared president.

Under cross-examination by Aliyu, the witness said he did not witness all the cases of malpractices he claimed in his statement, but that his party’s agents at the polling units witnessed what transpired.

While being cross-examined by lawyer to the APC, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), Madaki said he has lived in the Abuja for about 35 years and that the FCT was the same as other states in the country.

Madaki, who claimed to have written his statement by himself, was however, unable to explain the word “conscientiously” which was used in the statement.When asked by Fagbemi to tell the court the meaning of conscientiously, Madaki said: “I can’t remember.”

Former Transportation Minister, Dr. Abiye Sekibo, who featured as PW 7 said he acted as PDP’s State Collation Agent in Rivers State during the election.

Sekibo said he voted after he was duly accredited, noting that although his state has over 6000 polling units, he visited about 20.

Under cross-examination by Mahmoud, the witness said although he claimed, in his statement, that people were prevented from voting in eight local government areas, he was not present at all the local government areas, but only got information from his party’s agents.

Sekibo said results were not uploaded as required in the polling units he visited and was also told that similar incident occurred in other polling units across the state.

When asked to identify the alleged agents of Tinubu and the APC he claimed caused the disturbance that made it impossible for people to vote, Sekibo said he did not know them by name. He said he concluded based on the way the people acted.

Under cross-examination by Fagbemi, Sekibo admitted not including in his statement the figure allocated to the PDP as its score for the election.

He said the agents of his party, who were assigned to all the polling units are still alive.

Further hearing in the petition has been fixed for 9am today.

Also yesterday, the LP and its candidate Obi tendered results from eight more states, bringing to 20 the number of states in respect of which they have tendered CTCs of results in prosecution of their petition.

Their lawyer, Benbella Anichebe (SAN) tendered from the bar, CTCs of results from 13 local government areas in Ebonyi State, 13 local government areas in Nasarawa State, 25 local government areas in Delta State, 23 local government areas in Kaduna State and 27 local government areas in Imo State.

Another petitioners’ lawyer, Mrs. Valerie Azinge (SAN) tendered results from 18 local government areas in Ondo, seven local government areas in Sokoto and 21 local government areas in Kogi State.

Mrs. Azinge said her clients plan to tender more Forms EC8A from Sokoto as they receive more from INEC.

A third lawyer from the LP/Obi legal team, Patrick Ikwueto told the court that his clients filed an application on June 2 containing questions for INEC to respond to.

Ikwueto said INEC’s responses to the interrogatories were necessary for the prosecution of their petition.

Further hearing resumes in the case at 2pm today.

Culledd from The Nation

Judges at the PEPC( Presidential Election Tribunal

June 1, 2023

Tribunal scolds Obi’s legal team for shoddiness, adjourns case

Peter Obi, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), on Thursday in Abuja, scolded the legal team of the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, for failing to properly organise its schedule of documents for seamless tendering as exhibits.

Obi and his party filed a petition challenging the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

At the resumed hearing of the petition, the court frowned at the team’s inability to present its schedule of documents in a manner that would be easy for the court to comprehend.

This led to the court abruptly stepping down hearing in the petition for some minutes to enable the lawyers, led by Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, to put its house in order.

After resuming from the short break, the presentation of documents being handled by Mr Emeka Okpoko, SAN, still seemed not be have been done in the direction that had been agreed upon during the pre-hearing stage.

This led to the judges asking Obi’s team to take an adjournment and put their house in order before returning to tender the documents.

Specifically, Justice Misitura Bolaji-Yusuf said that the whole exercise of the petitioners was a waste of the court’s time.

“What we have done today is a waste of time. The poor way you have arranged the documents will cause confusion for both of you and the court.

“At this stage, it is better for you to go back and rearrange those documents in a sequence so as to help yourselves and the court.”

Prof. Kalu, however, prayed the court to allow his team tender the documents they had rather than take an adjournment since they had already lost one day.

The court allowed the petitioners to proceed following the appeal after which the petitioners said they would challenge the election results in 18 out of the 36 states.

The petitioners proceeded to tender certified true copies of electoral documents obtained from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in six out of the 18 states whose results they are challenging.

The documents are mainly Forms EC8A, which are election results from polling units.

The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked appropriately by the Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani.

INEC, which issued the documents to the petitioners, objected to all the documents being admitted in evidence.

INEC was represented by Mr Kemi Pinhero, SAN.

Similarly, counsel to President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima who are the second and third respondents and represented by Mr Adebayo Adelodun, SAN, and Mr Afolabi Fashanu respectively, also opposed the admissibility of the electoral documents.

They, however, said that they would give their reasons for objecting to the admissibility of the documents in their final addresses.

A list of the tendered and admitted documents include Forms EC8A from 15 local government areas of Rivers, 23 local government areas of Benue, 18 in Cross River, 23 in Niger, 20 in Osun and 16 in Ekiti.

Justice Tsammani, thereafter, adjourned further hearing in the petition to Friday at the instance of the petitioners.

Obi and his party are challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima on the grounds of electoral malpractices during the Feb. 25 presidential election.

June 1, 2023

Obi’s petition stepped down over poor scheduling of documents

Peter Obi

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) for the third time this week, was forced to step down hearing in the petition filed by Mr Peter Obi and the Labour Party due to poor scheduling of documents.

Obi and his party are before the election petition court challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu and the Vice-President, Senator Kashim Shettima.

Chairman of the court, Justice Haruna Tsammani, at the resumed hearing on Thursday, had to step down the petition, on account of poor scheduling of documents the petitioners sought to tender to prove their allegation of electoral malpractice during the Feb. 25 presidential election.

At Thursday’s proceedings, the court observed that the documents were not properly scheduled as it had ordered counsel to do.

There was some confusion as a lot of discrepancies were noticed as Mr Emeka Okpoko, SAN from the Obi legal team attempted to tender documents from the 23 local government areas of Benue.

All efforts to reconcile the discrepancies and reschedule the documents were futile forcing the judges to rise for about 15 minutes to allow the petitioners rectify the confusion.

The court asked Okpoko to rather file a different schedule of documents he had prepared which the court said was easier to understand than the earlier filed schedule.

The five Justices then retired to their chambers to await the time the legal team would put its house in order.

The confusion happened right in the presence of Obi, his running mate, Mr Datti Baba-Ahmed, the suspended Chairman of the party, Mr Julius Abure and other Labour Party members.

May 30, 2023

Obi’s ‘moon’ witness rattled in court by Tinubu, APC lawyers

Peter Obi, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

Lawyers to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, INEC and the All Progressives Congress rattled a witness of Peter Obi, the Labour Party candidate, when the witness faced cross examination today.

The lawyers bombarded the witness, identified as Lawrence Nwakaeti, with questions on whether the document he claimed contained an indictment of the president on drug accusation was registered in Nigeria or the U.S. consular office in Nigeria.

He was also asked whether he obtained a police certification of the document in the U.S. He replied no.

Nevertheless, the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC), admitted the documents.

Lawyers to Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and the APC told the court that they opposed the documents, but said they would expatiate on their objection in their closing remarks.

The document tendered on Tuesday was a United States District Court judgment, which Peter Obi claimed indicted Tinubu, because it ordered his forfeiture of 460,000 dollars in a drug suspicion offence.

Nwakaeti, who was jokingly called a ‘moon witness instead of a star witness’, was led in evidence by Mr Jibrin Okutepa, SAN.

Nwakaeti told the court that he was a registered voter and that he voted at a polling unit in his hometown in Anambra on Feb. 25.

Counsel to the respondents raised objections to the admission of the document in evidence but reserved their arguments to their objections until the final address stage.

Under cross examination by counsel to Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN, the witness admitted that the judgment was not registered in Nigeria.

Nwakaeti also admitted that there was no certificate from any Consular in Nigeria or America in support of the judgment but that the judgement was obtained and certified by the person in whose custody it was.

The witness told the court that he had been to the United States and also that he had read the judgment in its entirety adding that he would be surprised if no mention was made of 460,000 dollars forfeiture in it.

While also cross examining the witness, counsel to the All Progressives Congress, (APC), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, sought to know if the document had the certification of any police officer in the United States.

“Do you have a certificate given under the hand of a police officer in the United States where the alleged conviction took place.

“Are you aware of a formal clearance report dated Feb. 4, 2003 issued under the legal attache’ of the United States embassy in respect of the alleged indictment and forfeiture?”

The witness told the court that he had no certificate from the police and that he was not aware of any such report.

The witness further told the court that he did not have the charges against Tinubu because there were no charges since the indictment was from a civil forfeiture proceeding.

Since Nwakaeti was the petitioner’s only witness for the day, the Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned further hearing in the petition until Wednesday.

Full Transcript of Cross Examination:

LP: I apply that the witness be recalled to the witness box. Witness is listed as Number 7 LUNN in our petition

Court: Is he a star witness?

LP: No he’s a moon witness (joke). He’s an ordinary witness Where do you live?

W: Ihiala Anambra state

LP: On 20th of March 2023 you deposed to a witness statement to this honourable court. Please identify it.

W: I can identify my deposition

LP: What do you want to do with it.

W: Before I continue I wish to ask to apply to amend at paragraph 10. I mistakenly inserted 14th July (not February) 2022.

LP: My Lords I hope you effect this corrections before we progress. I so apply

Court: Any objections?

Respondents: No objections

Court: In the absence of any opposition it is hereby amended.

W: I seek to adopt same as my evidence

LP: In Para 17 of witness disposition you referred to the proceedings of the US district courts. Are these the documents you referred to then?

W: Yes they are

LP: I apply to tender that document which has been listed at number 5, pages 2 to the last of exhibit BA. Witness referred to it in paragraph 17 of his deposition.

Court: Objections?

INEC: No objection

T/S: Yes. I will put in the objection with arguments in our final Address

APC: I am objecting but I’ll do so in my final address.

Court: Admitted and marked as exhibit

T/s: His time is up.

LP: Please look at paragraph 7-11 of exh BA1 to BA4, are they the documents you referred to in your deposition?

W: Yes
LP: Thank you my Lord. I surrender him to cross examination

INEC: Witness, confirm to the court that you are a registered voter

W: I have my PVC and I voted on the 25th day of February, 2023

INEC: What’s your polling unit

W: Located in front of my house. Umuezala Village Square. That’s my polling unit

INEC: Will I be correct to say that you played no other role in the election

W: I’m a legal practitioner, not an author.

INEc: Confirm to the court if you have ever appeared to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court as an Amicus on any constitutional matter

W: No

INEC: please confirm that your statements in Para 4, 15, 16 & 17 of your deposition are the legal opinion you have formed on the exhibit you have identified.

W: They are not my legal opinion but matters of pure law

INEC: You said you’re from Amoka Community. Confirm to the court that there was crises

LP: I object because there is nothing related to this in his deposition. The sky is not the limit for cross examination.

Court: INEC what are you driving at?

INEC: I want to establish that he is a serial at causing crises. It is relevant for injuring his credibility in this election. He caused the crisis such that they have two presidents in the elections

T/S: Good Day my Learned friend. Did you prepare the statement and reached the conclusion or it was prepared for you?

W: I vetted it myself and I did not draw conclusion but I stated facts

T/S: Have you been to US? When and where?

W: Been Once in 2003, in Michigan.

T/S: In para: 17 & 18 you stated emphatically that the 2nd respondent was fined 460k dollars in the US. Do you still stand by it?

W: Yes I do

T/S: I suggest to you that you have never read through exhibit P5 series

W: I read through the entire document.

T/S: Will it surprise you that it was never indicated that in this document you tendered that no word, paragraph, line and sentence referred to him being fined?

W: I will be surprised because he was fined & the document speaks for itself.

T/S: We argue that these documents are not registered in Nigeria. Are they?

W: No but allow me to explain

T/S: No certificate from either the consul of United States, you know that?

W: There are certificates

S: Is there a certificate issued by any consular in US or Nigeria?

W: No certificates from the consular

T/S: Lastly, you tendered exhibit P1-P4, judgement of the Supreme Court. It settles any matter, Is that right?

Court: Objection to that question?

W: No.

APC: Do you have in Exh PA5 series, a certificate given under the hand of a police officer in the area where this occurred in the US?

W: None from the police

APC: Are you aware that a letter dated 6th of July, 2023, was written to the 1st respondent by the 4th respondent in respect to his nomination

W: I am not aware

APC: Are you aware of a formal clearance document dated 1st day of Feb, 2003?
W: Not aware

APC: You are aware that all the proceedings in exh B5 proceedings were civil?
W: Civil Forfeiture

APC: Do you have a copy of the charge?

W: I did not mention charge so I don’t have it.

LP: No re-examination my Lords

Notes: NB: T/S is Tinubu/ Shettima counsel

W is Witness

April 23, 2023

Nnamani to Peter Obi: Your petition against Tinubu dead on arrival, withdraw it

Peter Obi, President-Elect Bola Tinubu, Senator Chimaroke Nnamani

Former Enugu Governor, Chimaroke Nnamani has advised Mr Peter Obi to withdraw his petition challenging the election of Sen. Bola Tinubu at the Presidential Election Tribunal.

Nnamani said this in a statement on Sunday in Abuja, urging Obi and his supporters to accept the reality of the fact that Tinubu had emerged as the President-elect of Nigeria.

“Obi knows he has neither spread nor national appeal to win the presidential election. What Obi is doing with the petition is trying to de-market Tinubu.

“His petition is dead on arrival. He does not have the spread or national appeal. His appeal to non electoral matters is to demarket the President elect and damage his reputation.

“He does not have near spread and national appeal. The petition is ego driven and a joke carried too far.

“His attempt to highlight on non electoral issues is trying to embarrass the President elect,” he said.

Nnamani said Obi needed to come down from his high horse to allow negotiation on behalf of the Igbo nation and South -East for a stake in the national and share of the accruals of the commonwealth.

“We must join the mainstream and participate in the making of a new Nigeria.

“We are not going any where and ready to bargain for our own share. It is a common knowledge that others are doing the same.

“Igbo has to confront reality now or be consigned to the backwoods of history. Time to align is now,” he said

April 12, 2023

Northern Elders call for the arrest of Peter Obi, Datti Baba-Ahmed

Coalition of Northern Elders, Peter Obi

The Coalition of Northern Elders has called for the arrest of Labour Party presidential candidate in the February 25 election, Peter Obi and his running mate, Datti Baba-Ahmed.

The group urged Nigerian security operatives to be alive to their responsibility and maintained that nothing must stop the inauguration of the All Progressives Congress presidential candidate, Bola Tinubu as the next Nigerian President on May 29, 2023.

Accusing Obi and his Vice, Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed of making inciting statements capable of disrupting the country’s democracy maintained that their arrest would guarantee peace and unity of Nigeria.

The coalition made the demands in a communique issued at end of its meeting held in Arewa House in Kaduna State which was tagged: “Convention of Arewa Elders.”

The communique signed by all participants in the meeting was read by Chairman of Gamji Heritage, Alhaji Suleiman Usman Jere.

The Arewa Elders also accused LP candidate of promoting civil disobedience after losing February 25 presidential election.

The communique partly read: “Particularly worrisome, are the pronouncements of Mr. Peter Obi and Mr. Datti Ahmed, the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates of the Labour Party, as well as other Labour Party leaders including sources said to be linked to IPOB, ESN, which are known terrorist organisations.

“It is on record that Mr. Peter Obi engaged a very divisive ethno-religious campaign during the 2023 elections and has continued to brazenly display anti-democratic tendencies opting for civil disobedience and threats in place of constitutional means through the courts.

“We are calling on all our security agencies to be alive to their responsibilities. It amounts to treason for anybody to call for truncating our democracy by whatever guises, be it Interim National Government let alone the call for a military coup. Perpetrators must be arrested and be brought to book with immediate effect!

“Elections have been held and the Winner has emerged. The people of the North massively voted for Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu in National interest.

“We are mindful of our voting and will stand firmly to protect our democracy. We remain committed to the May 29th swearing-in date in line with Nigeria’s constitutional provisions,” the group said.

Reported by Sahara Reporters

April 12, 2023

I stand by my warnings to Obi, Datti: Lai Mohammed

Alhaji Lai Mohammed, Datti Baba-Ahmed, Peter Obi

The Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said the call for his arrest and prosecution for admonishing Labour Party Presidential Candidate, Peter Obi, over inciting the public to violence is unjustifiable.

The minister stated this on Wednesday in London while reacting to the call by Elder Statesman and Leader of the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), Chief Edwin Clark, that he should be arrested and prosecuted for spreading “fake news” about Obi.

Mohammed said he stood by his admonition of Obi and his running mate, Datti Baba-Ahmed, insisting that his advice was never premised on falsehood.

“What will be my offence? Is it by chiding Vice Presidential candidate of the Labour Party who said on live television that if the President-elect Bola Tinubu is sworn-in on May 29 that that would be the end of democracy in Nigeria?

“Is it for chiding him for saying that swearing-in Tinubu in May 29 is like swearing-in the military?

“What is the fake news in that?” the minister queried.

He said Baba-Ahmed had never denied his statement made on the live television

Mohammed also said that Obi had also not publicly called his running mate to order over the treasonable utterances.

“The position of the law is clear that anybody who is aggrieved over election results should go to court

“It is not to start threatening Nigerians and heating up the polity simply because you lost an election,” he said.

Mohammed stressed that the APC won the presidential election “fair and square” and INEC was right in declaring Tinubu the winner.

He reassured Nigerians and the international community that the president- elect would be sworn-in on May 29.

Sign In

Tag: Peter Obi