The Delta North senator-elect, Ned Nwoko, has said it is impossible to stop the four-year term of the President-elect,
Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, after the May 29 inauguration.

Nwoko explained that once the President-elect was sworn in, the petition filed against him at the Presidential Elections Petitions Tribunal in Abuja, might not see the light of day.

Obi had filed a petition to challenge Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 presidential election.

Obi, who came third in the election, in his petition, alleged that the election was characterised by irregularities, praying that Tinubu’s victory be annulled.

Nwoko, however, stated that the Labour Party’s poor assessment of the situation and unrealistic expectations led to its defeat.

Nwoko, who spoke with journalists in Abuja on Thursday, said had the opposition parties teamed up, they would have trounced the ruling APC in the election, given the poor performance of the current APC regime, led by the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.).

Nwoko reiterated that an alliance government would have been the perfect opportunity for Obi to “save” Nigeria’s economy as he avowed in his campaigns.

He stated that it was now near impossible to stop Tinubu from becoming President despite the petitions signed against him, once inaugurated.

Nwoko said, “Once Tinubu is inaugurated as President, he takes charge of everything. He becomes the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces; he orders them and uses them as he wishes. He appoints new Chief Justice upon recommendation by the judicial council.

“So, you see, it is almost impossible to stop him from completing his four years tenure.

“Moving forward, the PDP and Labour Party have to come to terms and make next election more strategic. Natural alliance between both parties is the only way to save Nigeria from this inauspicious government.”

The senator-elect maintained that the ruling APC would have suffered a severe defeat in the presidential poll if the oppositions had aligned.

He further pinned the blame on the Labour Party and ‘Obidients’, stressing that they were too self-absorbed to give room for logical reasoning.

The lawmaker stated, “It would have been a landslide victory for the opposition if the Labour Party and Peoples Democratic Party had worked together.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/punchng.com/obis-petition-against-tinubu-effort-in-futility-ned-nwoko/%3famp

Yes, it is not a crime for an Obi-diot to Labour in vain.

They are coming for your head, Ned.

If they can't, na Regina go suffer am.

We already know that sir. I believe obi just need the popularity for his Nollywood calling. Anytime I want to stop coming to politics section this obidients will just be annoying somebody and makes me keep coming back. 🤣

The over concentration of political and social commentators and analysts on the petition at the tribunal of Peter Obi who came third in the presidential elections, while leaving Atiku of the pdp who came second and is also challenging that same election at the tribunal is just strange.

On a normal Atiku is meant to get all the attention as he is perceived more threat to the apc victory having come second according to the results declared by inec.

That's true sha.
Obi has no case here.

Like someone above said, he needs it for nollywood

He's correct. But there are sounder reasons why the petition won't see the light of day, as eloquently surmised by the late Richard Akinjide.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanguardngr.com/2023/03/richard-akinjides-hindsight-why-you-cant-win-presidential-election-petition/amp/

Richard Akinjide’s Hindsight: Why You Can’t Win Presidential Election Petition!

March 13, 2023

Jide Ajani

In matters of election petitions, Richard Osuolale Abimbola Akinjide remains a legend.

Having successfully determined the letters and spirit of the Electoral Decree of 1977, proving to the courts that Section 34 (A) (l) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Decree, means that two-thirds of a state is synonymous with votes cast in two – thirds of votes cast in the territorial or physical areas of the state and, thereby, handing Usman Aliyu Shehu Shagari the presidential election victory of 1979, Akinjide remains very relevant to jurisprudential matters in Nigeria.

Practising his law at over 70 years, Akinjide still appears in court – he’s about the most visible minister in the Second Republic who is not only in politics but has his professional calling as first love.

Therefore, Sunday Vanguard decided to seek his opinion on the seeming futility of a political party pursuing an election petition in a presidential election, especially in the face of the punishing Doctrine of Substantial Compliance.

This legal luminary agreed with Sunday Vanguard that an election petition at that level is no more than a fool’s errand (Read Prologue) – a wasted effort

Excerpts:

Can we have a flawless election anywhere in the world?

No! Anywhere in the world, whether it is Europe, America or even in Africa, it is accepted that in a normal democracy, it is impossible to conduct a flawless election. It is humanly impossible and that is why you have the doctrine of substantial compliance that is written into all election laws in all countries.

The doctrine of Substantial Compliance! What does it mean?

With the doctrine of substantial compliance, it is implicit and conceded that there must be flaws in the election but that once there is substantial compliance, then the election should be accepted as having substantially complied with the laws and the return should not be upset.

But why shouldn’t an election be upturned if there are flaws?

If you look at what happened in 1960 in the United States when John Fitzgerald Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon, there were flaws in the election in Chicago; there were flaws in the elections in Texas. The majority of Kennedy over Nixon was very thin and supporters of Nixon urged him to file a petition but Nixon said no.

He explained that if he filed an election petition and he won, it would damage, forever, the United States and the legitimacy of the office of the president of the United States.

Nixon went on to say that it is better for Nixon not to be president than for an American institution to be damaged and, therefore, he refused to file a petition against Kennedy’s victory in 1960 – I was in New York at that time. This is a lesson which our leaders here should learn.

But there is a difference between the two countries…?

Yes, there is a difference and the difference between the United States and Nigeria is that the United States is a nation while Nigeria is a country and not a nation. Many people who file election petitions here don’t look at it from a national perspective but from a sectional point. You want to be president of Nigeria and not the president of the East, West or Delta or North and that is the critical difference between us here and the countries of the West.

Let’s even find out, would you take a case to appeal an election victory or a presidential election at that? Would you come forward and prove that an election did not substantially comply with the provisions of the law?

Is that based on principles or on the understanding of the letters and spirit of the law?

I will not and the lawyers who are advising the would-be petitioners should be very, very careful and also put not only the law into consideration but also the national interest and the consequences of any debacle.

That an election was flawed and a winner has emerged is enough debacle! So, what other debacle?

Good question! The new president has to summon the first meeting of the National Assembly and that is the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Now, if there is no president, the National Assembly can not meet and the previous president can not summon that assembly because his term has expired so he can not. It is the new president that would do it.

So, in the event that there is no president who would do it! There would be total anarchy and chaos in the land. The same thing applies in the state where the new governor is expected to inaugurate the state house of assembly.

That doctrine…?

Apart from the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance, there is also a Doctrine of Consequences, the Doctrine of Consequences, was applied during the election debacle between George Bush and Al Gore because of the problem of Florida. The United States can not afford not to have a president and by voting of five to four, the United States of America’s Supreme Court said Bush was validly returned and the moment the court said that Gore just picked up his phone and called up Bush to congratulate him and with that call gave validity and legitimacy to Bush as president.

These are the things we should learn and not party interest or personal interest or sectional interest.

Within the context of our own environment and contestation for power, we have heard politicians say openly that they would rather rig and win rather than be the one to file a petition, that they would rather be the defendant of a flawed electoral victory than be the litigant who would be saddled with the burden of proving that an election did not substantially obey the law. In this context, is the law not creating an environment where people would just go ahead to rig, win and wait for the other party to come and prove that there was no substantial compliance?

If you look at the process in Europe, the United States and other civilised countries, they put a searchlight on aspirants. This is because the private lives of a would-be public servant is of national interest because those countries would not want to put a crook in power, one that would put sectional or private interests above national interests or the common good.

Therefore, in my view, the present electoral law is too cumbersome, it should be simplified and emphasis should be placed on character and on national interests. India as the greatest democracy in the world, you would not hear some of this rubbish we seem to be used to here. You will not see somebody in office after a year or two and an election petition is still going on; that is absolute rubbish. But it is not the fault of the people it is the law. During the Tafawa Balewa and Shehu Shagari time, the electoral law was simplified and simple such that all election petitions are concluded before swearing-in.

Our laws say the litigant must prove that the elections are flawed. Using substantial compliance doctrine, how easy would it be for a litigant to prove that an election did not substantially comply in a presidential election in Nigeria?

The law is the law because when you go to court even on any matter, you must prove your case.

The onus is on you whether it is an election matter or a land matter you’ve gone to court so you must prove your case. When you say somebody has stolen money, you must prove it. So when you go to court to say an election was flawed, then you must prove your case.

In 1979, the contention was about what constitutes two-thirds. Give a summary of that great trial?

My defence against Chief Awolowo’s petition was predicated on three critical points. One is that there was total compliance in accordance with the electoral law. In the alternative, there was substantial compliance.

Thirdly, in any event, the electoral petition and the reliefs sought were flawed and Justice Otutu Obaseki highlighted that very thoroughly.

So, from the point of view of total compliance or substantial compliance or the way the petition was presented, we won.

Professor Reid, of the University of London, wrote to me and also told me that what I did has made a notable contribution to constitutional law all over the world.

There is no doubt that the case of Awolowo Vs Shagari has been cited in many electoral petition cases in the country because I hear of some rubbish in some places that the judgment should not be cited. That is absolute rubbish.

Effort in futility.

Thats how sorry the state of Nigeria is!
The ones I pity most are the animals in Maitland rejoicing over the sorry state of Nigeria thinking they are doing someone until the evil they supported comes home to eat them up!

Ned is a lizard.

Everybody knows this na.

Hehehehehehehehehe , Peter Obi miscreants will cry tire, after Tinubu has been sworn in, it will senseless to continue petition, no man born out of woman can unseat Ashiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu Jagaban the Eze-Chukwu of Igbo land.

They're setting themselves up for another round of hot tears. Kikiki 🤣🤣🤣 they're specialist in building castles in the air. They'll start insulting judges soon. Lol 🤣🤣

Good!
Those who worship corruption will always support corruption to trample on the collective will of the people.

So sayeth a fake pediphilic philanthropist!

It will be futile given the jaundiced judiciary in a symbolic wheelchair!

OBI and Nigerians only have the courts of the WORLD and their GODS to protect them from APCriminals!

Give us LIBERTY or give us DEATH!

Nigerians are tired of schooling in Sudan and Ukraine!

Duplipost!

Cooldowntemper:
Pedophile must support cocaine sniffer

Bread and butter

They say the truth is a very bitter pill to swallow, so bare your pain.

KanwuliaExtra:
Good!
Those who worship corruption will always support corruption to trample on the collective will of the people.

So sayeth a fake pediphilic philanthropist!

It will be futile given the jaundiced judiciary in a symbolic wheelchair!

OBI and Nigerians only have the courts of the WORLD and their GODS to protect them from APCriminals!

Give us LIBERTY or give us DEATH!

Nigerians are tired of schooling’s Sudan! in Ukraine an

Keep wailing talking of corruption, you are yet to tell us the mode on how which the Labor party selected Peter Gringory Obi of the pdp (The so called Messiah) who was not even a registered member of the Labor party, as their presidential candidate.

IyaebeTheGreat:
We already know that sir. I believe obi just need the popularity for his Nollywood calling. Anytime I want to stop coming to politics section this obidients will just be annoying somebody and makes me keep coming back. 🤣

What does your Dad needs to be elevated?
You go about talking trash thinking it's all cruise.

HisSexcellency:
The over concentration of political and social commentators and analysts on the petition at the tribunal of Peter Obi who came third in the presidential elections, while leaving Atiku of the pdp who came second and is also challenging that same election at the tribunal is just strange.

On a normal Atiku is meant to get all the attention as he is perceived more threat to the apc victory having come second according to the results declared by inec.

The exact reason that it has been proven that oblivious Obidients are just a clueless bunch of political church rats.

Ok

HisSexcellency:
The over concentration of political and social commentators and analysts on the petition at the tribunal of Peter Obi who came third in the presidential elections, while leaving Atiku of the pdp who came second and is also challenging that same election at the tribunal is just strange.

On a normal Atiku is meant to get all the attention as he is perceived more threat to the apc victory having come second according to the results declared by inec.

but it's obi people that are concentrating on stolen mandate than atiku people

Mumu Man

These are the people that said we're four persons tweeting in a room. He is part of the structures of criminality Obi is talking about

ExAngel007:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/punchng.com/obis-petition-against-tinubu-effort-in-futility-ned-nwoko/%3famp

Ja won tan! From a PDP man.

At this Bus stop.... let's us all start proper prep for May 29th,2023.
Who get regalia, put on.
Aso-ebi, pls do.
Xmas cloth please do.
Ile-ya Abaya pls do put on.

Put all CEREMONIAL DRESSES, remember that your FACE, put a SMILE ON 😃

Peter Obi will win.

Legitisreal:
but it's obi people that are concentrating on stolen mandate than atiku people

Same Judas Peter Obi that caused himself & Abubakar Atiku to lose the election, is now forming election petition to save face?

Mumu, Selfish, self centered Hypocrite.

I support Obi, but Ned is right.

Last I checked Ned nwoko is in pdapc.

Okay. It is normal

Ok

Ned is 100% correct. But in all, I blame Atiku he really displayed political nativity by allowing wike dictate the tune. He should have made advances to PO & Kwankwaso. He should have damned wike to one corner and begged PO & Kwankwaso for a merger. At least PO will know that if Atiku finished his turn it would be him & Kwankwaso would have been ok with SGF. That is why Jagaban is better than them. I have always said it. If the SC has never removed a sitting president, why would they do it now.