In a response to President Bola Tinubu’s legal team, Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate for the election of February 25, 2023, and the initial petitioner in the case currently before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, said that anarchy only reigns in places where the rule of law is disregarded.
Obi responded to Tinubu’s lawyers’ written argument that a reading of the law needing 25% of the total legal votes cast in 24 states and the Federal Capital Territory could result in anarchy with this through his legal team.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate and the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the petition, Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Kashim Shetimma, threatened anarchy in a release on Friday, and the LP candidate, through his legal team, responded in a principled manner, according to Obi’s media team. They claimed that if the court interpreted Section 134 of the Electoral Act against them, it might result in the breakdown of law and order.
The press statement stated, in part, that Tinubu’s legal team, led by Wole Olanipekun, had threatened that “any other interpretation different from theirs will lead to absurdity, confusion, anarchy, and change of the basic intention of the legislature” in their final speech before the court.
However, “Peter Obi’s lawyers, led by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu and Onyechi Ikpeazu, disagreed, arguing that anarchy only reigns supreme in instances when the rule of law is violated or shortened.
“A sentence in the address of the Second and Third Respondents scared the Petitioners and millions of Nigerians,” claims Obi. When they stated, “Our submission is that the Petitioners are encouraging chaos by their venting of this problem of non-transmission of results electronically, by INEC,” the 2nd-3rd Respondents went too low and abandoned discretion.
Tinubu’s outburst was viewed by Obi’s legal team as “a cheap, misguided, and damaging blackmail plainly aimed to damage the country’s judicialism and constitutionalism,” according to the statement. Additionally, it seeks to consume our democracy.
The legal team also observed that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ careless and absurd statements aim to raise the issue of insecurity if the Petitioners were to follow their bad example, but they added that this will never happen due to the petitioners’ discipline, peaceable demeanour, and belief in the rule of law.
“Obi’s legal team questioned, “When has it become objectionable for Petitioners to canvass a ground provided for the challenge of an election in section 134(1)(b) of the Electoral Act 2022? “, further highlighting the absurdity and supererogatory of the Respondent’s threat.
“The legal eggheads attributed the Respondents’ foolish outburst and effusion to their acute desperation, which can be quite dangerous.
“Let the 2nd-3rd Respondents know that anarchy reigns supreme where the rule of law is trampled upon or shortened.”
The Electoral Court should render a decision in this case soon.
