Thread by @omonlakiki

Atiku and PDP reply to INEC's defence to their Petition.

This is a Thread.

Reply to the preliminary objection filed by INEC
1. Contrary to INEC’s preliminary objection, Atiku and PDP contend that the petition is competent and contains the result of the election as declared by INEC as mandatorily required by paragraph 4 (1) © of the First Schedule...

to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
2. In answer to paragraph (1) (b) of the preliminary objection, Atiku & PDP contend that the reliefs sought in the petition are not contradictory & that the petition is valid.

3. In response to paragraph (1) © of the preliminary objection, Atiku & PDP contend that their petition as filed, is competent & duly signed by Atiku & PDP and their legal practitioner who is enrolled in the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 1982.

The said Legal Practitioner who signed the petition is also licensed to practice in Nigeria. He is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and had severally represented INEC in previous election petitions since 1999.

4. In respect of Atiku and PDP’s list of witnesses and their list of documents, same were also duly signed by Atiku & PDP’s legal practitioner who is enrolled in the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 1982. He is licensed to practice in Nigeria and is also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

He has severally represented INEC in previous election petitions since 1999. He was also the Honourable Attorney General of Imo State (19994-1996).

5. Further to paragraphs 3 & 4 above, Atiku & PDP contend that the objection is puerile, face saving, absolutely and uncompletely unfounded.

6. Contrary to paragraph 1 (d) of INEC’s preliminary objection, Atiku & PDP contend that grounds “D” and “E” of their petition are competent and do not fall within the category of pre-election matters...

as provided by Section 285(14)(b) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (4th Alteration No. 21) Act 2017.
7. Atiku & PDP’s grounds and reliefs in their petition are covered by sections 31(1) & 2() & 138 (1) (e) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

8. In answer to para 1 (e) of INEC’s preliminary objection, Atiku & PDP aver that the allegations contained in the said para, namely, improper accreditation, non-authentication of results, over-voting, inflating & deflating of votes...

and wrong entries in forms EC8A are not in any way imprecise and nebulous, especially in relation to the states and paragraphs of the petition so set out in the grounds of objection.

9. In further response to paragraph 1 (e) at page 3 of INEC’s reply, Atiku & PDP contend that the paragraphs so listed or set out by INEC are neither imprecise nor nebulous, Atiku & PDP having given particulars of the locations where the infractions took place.

10. Contrary to paragraph 1 (f) of INEC’s preliminary objections, Atiku & PDP contend that the agencies mentioned in the said grounds of objection i.e. the Nigerian Police and the Nigerian Army were at all times acting for and on behalf of INEC in the conduct of the elections...

of 23rd February, 2019. Besides, by virtue of section 29(3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the security personnel deployed in the election were at the instance of INEC & they acted on instructions of INEC.

11. In answer to paragraph 1 (g) of INEC’s preliminary objection alleging failure to join persons named in the ground of objection, Atiku & PDP contend that the individuals named therein were acting for and on behalf of INEC...

and as agents and on the authority of APC who is a named party in Atiku & PDP’s petition.
12. In reply to paragraph 1 (h) of INEC’s preliminary objection alleging incompetence of the petition as a pre-election matter,

Atiku & PDP contend that qualification is not a pre-election matter and same is covered by the provisions of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and therefore competent and not statute barred.

13. In answer to paragraph 1 (i) of INEC’s preliminary objection alleging incompetence of paragraph 15 (e) and relief contained in paragraph 409 of the petition, Atiku & PDP contend that the said paragraph and relief are well within the competence...

and jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of first instance in a Presidential Election Petition.

14. Atiku & PDP will contend at the hearing of the petition that INEC is duly partisan in its reply and as part of its partisan inclination has decided to rally round Muhammadu Buhari...

vide paragraphs 1(d), (h), (i) and (j) of its reply under the guise of preliminary objection with respect to the qualification of Buhari to contest the presidential election.

15. Atiku & PDP avow that the preliminary objection of INEC is frivolous, constituting an abuse of court’s process nod designed to cause avoidable delays in the hearing and determination of this petition, which is time-sensitive.

Part 2 of Atiku & PDP’s reply to INEC’s defence
…4. Atiku & PDP in further response to paragraph 5 of INEC’s reply, state that INEC through its Returning Officer for the Presidential Election, the Chairman of INEC, committed grave errors in the final collation exercise.

For instance, in form EC8E, by falsely crediting Okotie Christopher with a wrong political party and wrong scores. In the same vein, he falsely credited Rev. Dr. Onwubuya with a wrong political party and wrong scores.

5. Similarly the Returning Officer for the Presidential Election, the Chairman of INEC, committed grave errors in the final collation exercise in form EC8E, by falsely crediting Ojinika Jeff Chizee with a wrong political party and wrong scores...

In the same token, he attributed to Abah Lewis Elaigwu a wrong political party and wrong scores.
6. Atiku & PDP state that the final result as declared by INEC are those that were transmitted online to the website of INEC (inecnigeria.org).

Atiku & PDP visited the said website on several days, one of the days being Friday, the 12th day of April, 2019 at 4.58pm. Atiku & PDP hereby plead and shall rely on the said final results as published by INEC in the said website.

7. The grave errors referred to in paragraphs 4 & 5 above were under the hand and signature of INEC’s chairman (who was also the Returning Officer) in the conduct of the final collation of the results of the Presidential Election.

8. INEC’s pleading in paragraph 10 of its reply to the petition is false and intended to conceal the serious infractions, irregularities and malpractices committed by INEC and its officials. Atiku & PDP state that the information,

data, documents, footages, images and photographs relied on by Atiku & PDP are products of officials of INEC and are not false, skewed, suborned or spurious as alleged by INEC.

9. Contrary to the evasive denial of INEC in paragraph 11 of its reply to the petition, Atiku & PDP aver that the table containing votes of candidates in paragraph 21 are not a conjecture but the result of the acts of the officials of INEC,

who complied with the directives and training instructions of INEC on electronic transmission of votes as evidenced in:
I. INEC’s “Training Manual on Elections Technologies (Use, Support and Maintenance) 2019”.

II. Printout of votes of candidates from the Smart Card Reader machines;
III. Printout of votes of candidates from INEC’s servers.
INEC is hereby given notice to produce the above-mentioned manuals and printouts.

10. In further answer to paragraph 11 of INEC’s reply Atiku & PDP state as follows:

a. The servers from which the said figures were derived belong to INEC. The figures and votes were transmitted to INEC’s Presidential Result’s Server 1 and thereafter aggregated in INEC_PRES_RSLT_SRV2019,

whose physical address or unique Mac address is 94-57-A5-DC-64-B9 with Microsoft Product ID 00252-70000-00000-AA535. The above descriptions are unique to INEC server.

b. There is no conjecture in the votes and scores in the table pleaded by Atiku & PDP. The figures are factual. The Spokesperson for Buharis’ Campaign Organisation openly admitted that the data in question was in INEC Server when he wrote and submitted a petition...

to the Inspector General of Police and Director General of DSS asking the security agencies to investigate PDP herein for allegedly hacking into the Server of INEC and obtaining the data in question.

c. Specifically, Mr. Festus Keyamo, SAN, the Spokesperson of Buhari claimed in the said petition that it was Atiku who smuggled the data into the Server. Atiku & PDP hereby plead the said petition to the security agencies...

and Buhari is hereby given notice to produce them at the hearing. Atiku & PDP also plead newspaper reports, television broadcasts and news reports in the social media on the public admissions made by Buhari’s authorized spokesperson on the issue.

11. Atiku & PDP will at the trial of this petition rely on experts on Microsoft, IBM and Oracle amongst others.

12. In answer to paragraphs 15, 16 and 19 of INEC’s reply to the petition, Atiku & PDP plead that the Smart Card Readers were used at the said election for verification, accreditation of voters, authentication of voters, collation and transmission of results to INEC’s Server.

13. The assertion that in paragraph 15 of INEC’s reply that the Smart Card Readers were only to be used for the election where they functioned is false. The allegation that the Smart Card Readers were employed for authentication only is also false.

14. Atiku & PDP shall at the trial lead evidence to show that INEC stated on several occasions before and after elections that the use of Card Readers was compulsory...

On Thursday, 28th day of February, 2019, INEC met with its Resident Electoral Commissioners to review the Presidential and National Assembly Elections and assess preparations for the Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections.

At the meeting, INEC and its Commissioners reiterated the fact that non-use of the Smart Card Reader was contrary to INEC regulations and guidelines for the conduct of elections...

Atiku & PDP hereby plead the press release issued on the 1st day of March, 2019, by Mr. Festus Okoye, National Commissioner and Chairman Information, Voter Education Committee.

…18. Atiku & PDP in response to paragraph 62 (1) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) of INEC’s reply, aver that the Presidential and National Assembly Elections held simultaneously on the 23rd of February, 2019...

Most of the results as declared by INEC in the various states between the total accreditation and total votes cast did not tally as claimed by INEC.

19. Further to paragraph 18 above, Atiku & PDP aver that accreditation for Presidential and National Assembly Elections in the various polling units were conducted jointly using the same Smart Card Reader machines.

The total number of accredited voters in each polling unit during the election of 23rd February, 2019 represents the total figure of accreditation for both Presidential and National Assembly Elections.

20. The accreditation for the said elections were joint and inseparable. What affects one must of necessity affect the other. The accreditation for the elections were therefore not mutually exclusive.

...26. Whereof Atiku & PDP aver in conclusion that:
I. The petition is competent and meritorious and the return of Buhari by INEC is undue and wrongful...

ii. INEC's reply does not answer the points of substance but is full of extraneous facts, contradictory, evasive, speculative and vague assertions.