Justice Moses Ugo, of the presidential election tribunal on Wednesday, said that the Independent National Electoral Commission must be an “abysmally poor” manipulator for announcing Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar winners of the 2023 election in certain states.
Recall that Atiku contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), while Obi was the flagbearer of the Labour Party (LP).
However, the former Vice President who emerged second in the February 25 election, and ex- Anambra Governor who came third had challenged the victory of Bola Tinubu, presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the presidential election.
Justice Ugo, while speaking during the ruling on Wednesday, said the petitioners failed to prove that the results of the election as reeled out by INEC were manipulated.
Ugo said it was curious that Obi and Atiku won in certain states where Tinubu, who was alleged to have been favoured by INEC, secured “miserly” figures.
He also wondered why Tinubu lost in his home state of Lagos to Obi, even though he was alleged to have been the favoured candidate of the umpire.
The Judge said: “I am of the very fixed view that the two sets of petitioners did not by any means discharge the burden on them of proving that the results of the presidential election of 25th February 2023 as declared by 1st respondent were incorrect.”
“Incidentally, that assertion of petitioners that INEC simply closed down or blocked its IReV and e-transmission system to enable it to manipulate election results in favour of 2nd respondent, also takes me directly to the more important question in the petition.
“Namely, whether that allegation is even worthy of belief given the results declared by INEC for them and the 2nd respondent in the election.
READ MORE: Were You Expecting Us To Gather Evidence For You In The Market? – Tribunal To Peter Obi, LP (Video)
“The question is, do the results declared by INEC support that hypothesis? I shall therefore now try to walk us through some of these election results to see if that assertion of petitioners is supported by the results declared by INEC.”
He added, “If all the results declared by INEC for each of the states for the two sets of petitioners and 2nd respondent is anything to go by, then INEC must be an abysmally poor manipulator if not even an imbecilic one.
“Surely, it would not go through all the stress of closing down its IReV and blocking the public from seeing its manipulative efforts in favour of 2nd respondent as alleged by the petitioners, only for it to still end up favouring the petitioners with jumbo votes and posting miserly figures for the favoured second respondent.’
He asked, “At any rate, why did any of the two sets of petitioners not tender even a single polling unit result issued by INEC to their polling unit agents to support their claim of manipulation of election results by INEC, even as they all agreed that they have agents in the polling units?
“I had thought that this is the best and most effective way of proving the manipulation of election results alleged by them.
“After all, the polling unit is the only place where voting takes place and so also constitutes the building blocks of election results.
“In short, the allegation of the petitioner that INEC shut down IReV to manipulate votes for second respondent, just does not add up for me.”
