Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s (LP) presidential candidate in the most recent general election, criticised INEC for objecting to the petition the party filed to prevent Asiwaju Bola Tinubu from being elected.
In his response to INEC’s response to his case at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, Peter Obi noted that the electoral umpire’s move was not only unjustified but also embarrassing for the nation.
Read Also: More Details As Mr Eazi Denies Selling Vydia For $1bn — Breakdown Of What Happened
According to the petition, INEC should “avoid creating the impression that it has no respect for neutrality in an electoral contest between candidates” in order to comply with international best practises for electoral umpires in national elections.
Obi and his party, who are joint petitioners recalled several judgments which had repeatedly admonished INEC of its need to remain neutral in election proceedings.
The petitioners said;
However, the 1st Respondent hereof, has remained impervious to change. Therefore, it is not only an embarrassment but a repudiation of the duty of the I st Respondent when it adorns the garb of a contestant in an election it conducted as an umpire to raise preliminary objection against an Election Petition as in the case hereof.
The petitioners argue that INEC must refrain from filing objections to the petition and maintain impartiality in all legal proceedings when election participants are contesting the results of the polls.
However, the petitioners refute the claim that the facts supporting the grounds on which the petition is founded are ambiguous and imprecise in their response to the preliminary objection dated April 25.
The 1st Respondent’s contention that the reliefs sought in the Petition are not grantable is false and made in manifest disregard of the specific and concise pleadings in the Petition.
The pleading in the 1 st Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection that the allegation in paragraph 20(ii) of the Petition is defective and does not disclose a cause of action, is wishful thinking. The specific particulars of non-compliance complained of which substantially affected the outcome of the election are as pleaded in paragraphs 33 to 78 of the Petition.
The Petitioners further aver that Reliefs 3, 5(i) and 5(ii) of the Petition are grantable and are amply supported by the detailed particulars of non-compliance alleged in the Petition.
ENIGERIA NEWSPAPER
