Home Opinion Due Diligence and Justice, Nigerians Expectations from PEPC

Due Diligence and Justice, Nigerians Expectations from PEPC


By Debo Oyedele

Most Nigerians now believe that INEC failed to meet its statutory responsibilities of “independently” delivering Presidential credible elections in 2023. They feel that due diligence in rectifying INEC’s dismal performance and obvious missteps has fallen on the Nigerian Judiciary, even as most still have lingering doubts.

The question remains, and there are deep-seated doubts, if the judiciary has the forbearance for due diligence that will result in true justice.

It was the revered Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said “When evil men must seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo; good men must try and bring into being a real order of justice.”

The evil men are INEC and their benefactors, who seek to drag Nigeria into perdition and an abyss of destructive conflict. Those charged with restoring the “real order of justice” are the judiciary.

Nigerians know who they voted for and who won the 2023 presidential elections. Nigerian youths drove that process and delivered, only for their mandate to be hijacked.

Evidence, hard facts, electronic, soft, material, and discernible results exist that point to the Labour Party having won the election but being rigged out. Foreign and domestic observers have reported that much. In different words, the observers all concluded substantive noncompliance by INEC. In simple words, the announced results were fake and fraudulent and should not stand.

Several political parties have challenged the results in court. APM, PDP, and LP have rested their cases. INEC and APC have responded also, as did Tinubu and Shettima. The judiciary must now adjudicate.

Using evidence presented and materials in the public domain and Internet, especially INEC-certified results, LP won Rivers State and Benue State, which INEC called in favour of APC after the results were extremely tampered with.

That being the case, it goes without saying that a recalculation of the results will show that LP won 13 States and Abuja FCT.

This places LP as 2nd by virtue of the constitutional requirements for a run-off, which recognizes the candidate who scores the majority of votes in the highest number of States as the candidate eligible for a run-off with the candidate that scored the majority of votes cast in the election.

The issue before the judiciary is a matter of law. But primarily, it is academic and a matter of elementary arithmetic. What is required is patience and diligence. Since INEC never produced the results it used for calling the elections, the court must return to the blackboard and do the recount itself or via a professional proxy.

To paraphrase those immortal legal pleadings of Johnny Cochrane: “If INEC figures don’t fit, the Court must annul.”

Nevertheless, some revealing facts exist. With the LP winning 13 States plus the FCT, there is no gainsaying that LP is willy-nilly eligible to participate in any run-off or re-run of the elections.

Moreover, APC’s presumed victory cannot stand muster or rigorous examination. Indeed, the supposed victory speaks to and proves INECs’ substantial non-compliance.

Analytical evidence on the IREV uploaded materials proves that there were nearly 39,000 blurred, unreadable, and tampered with results; of which LP pleaded and presented only 18,0888.

Regardless of the numbers used, whether 39,000 or 18,000 blurred results, the simple implication is that at the minimum, the results of 2,565,269 duly accredited Nigerian voters were unaccounted for. Additionally, available INEC records show that the number of PVCs collected in the affected polling units was 9,165,191.

Since the blurred result sheets were essentially inaccessible, unavailable, unreadable, unverifiable, uncalculatable, and unsubstantial, it means that the total number of polling units in this category, which are estimated to be 39,546, were not factored into the declared results. Interestingly and curiously, these inaccessible results translate to about 5,532,553 accredited voters’ results not being accounted for; then also an estimated 23,119,298 voters who had collected their PVCs have not been accounted for.

Those versed in forensic and mathematical analysis have concluded that the foregoing instances of suppression of results, whether wilfully or by default, show that in applying the margin of Lead Principle, the #PVCs collected but which were not accounted for by INEC far exceed the presumed APC declared lead over LP (2,693,193) or PDP (1,807,206). In sum, this singular reality rendered the election inconclusive, and as such the presumed winner ought to have been declared. This is simple arithmetic, which INEC flunked.

Additionally, further evidence of proof exists in that the number of INEC’s accredited voters in both instances also exceeded the margin of lead.

Election results tabulation hinges on simple arithmetic of plus or minus, with the winner having the majority. Any suppression of votes won, becomes a minus and a negative for the affected parties and of benefit to the unaffected party.

INEC as an arbiter, is not supposed to be partisan or partial. Yet, by acts of commission or omission, it has failed the threshold test of its impartiality. Clearly, there is incontestable evidence of substantial noncompliance. The courts must now show due diligence in recalculating the forged and fuzzy figures rendered by INEC to deliver substantive justice. Anything less will be unsavory and destructive to our democracy, national interest, and stability.

Previous articleShun ‘japa’ syndrome, LUTH CMD advises young doctors
Next articleAnthrax: FG donates free 50,000 doses of vaccines to Lagos

Leave a Reply