INEC CLAIMS TO BE UNAWARE OF TINUBU’S DRUG CASE, FORFEITURE

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC’s response to Tinubu’s drug charge and forfeiture mentioned in Obi’s petition is:

“We are not aware of the alleged conviction of the 2nd Respondent as stated in the referenced paragraphs of the Petition.”

Peter Obi & Ors -v- INEC & Ors (1st Respondent’s Reply)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT ABUJA

IN THE MATIER OF THE ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA HELD ON THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 – PETITION NO: CA/PEPC/03/2023

1ST RESPONDENT’S (INEC) REPLY TO THE PETITION NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO THE PETITION

TAKE NOTICE that the 1st Respondent shall, before or and at the hearing of the Petition, urge this Honourable Court, by way of Preliminary Objection to dismiss or strike out the Petition for being grossly incompetent, abusive, vague, nebulous, generic, general, non-specific, ambiguous, equivocal, hypothetical, and academic.

FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the grounds of the said objection are:

1. The Grounds on which the Petition is based are defective having regard to the vague and imprecise averments supporting the said Grounds.
2. The reliefs sought in the Petition are not grantable having regard to the Grounds of the Petition and the vague averments in the Petition.
   in support of the said Grounds.

Particulars:
(i) The Ground of the Petition bordering on non¬compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and corrupt practices as contained in paragraph 20(ii) of the Petition is defective and does not disclose a reasonable cause of action for failure to plead specific particulars and figures as to how the alleged non-compliance complained of substantially affected the results of the election.
(ii) In view of (a) above, Prayers 3, 5(i) and 5(ii) of the Petition predicated on the Ground of non­compliance in paragraph 20(ii) of the Petition are un-grantable.
(iii) The Ground of the Petition that the 2nd Respondent was not elected by majority of lawful votes cast ·as contained in paragraph 20(iii) of the Petition is defective for failure to plead the alleged unlawful votes to be deducted and/or lawful votes to be credited to the Petitioners.
(iv) In view of (c) above, Prayers 2, 4(i), 4(ii), 4(iii) and 4 (iv) in paragraph 102 of the Petition predicated on majority of lawful votes cast are not grantable.
(v) Prayer 1(iii) in paragraph 102 of the Petition for the Honourable Court to declare that the 1st Petitioner scored majority of lawful votes cast at the election and thereby declare him winner is defective for failure to join necessary parties and for lack of requisite particulars and pleading to support same.
(vi) Prayers 1- 4 as contained in paragraph 102 of the Petition are incongruous and inconsistent with prayer 5 as sought in the Petition.
(vii) In the absence of Prayers l(iii), 2, 3, 4(i), 4(ii), 4(iii), 4 (iv), 5(i) and 5(ii) as contained in Paragraph 102 of the Petition which are not sustainable, the entire Petition is rendered academic and incurably defective.

3. All the allegations forming the subject of the purported Grounds of the Petition are grossly defective, abusive, vague, nebulous, generic, general, non-specific, ambiguous, equivocal, hypothetical, and academic:

Particulars:
(i) Whereas in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Petition, the Petitioners alluded to “actual scores” and “Polling units in Benue State”, the said purported “actual scores” and “Polling Units” are unspecified and unknown.
(ii) The allegations in Paragraphs 62, 64, 66 and 67 of the Petition, touch on unknown, undisclosed and unspecified “Polling Units in Rivers State” as well as unspecified lawful votes allegedly supressed and Polling Units where no elections were allegedly held.
(iii) In paragraphs 68 and 69 of the Petition, the Petitioners alleged scores purportedly obtained by the Petitioners but were reduced and unlawful scores to be deducted without specifying the alleged scores. Similarly, results of Polling Units, Wards, local Governments, States to be properly tabulated and alleged correct polling unit results as alluded to in paragraphs 70 and 71 of the Petition are unspecified and unknown.
(iv) In paragraphs 73, 7S and 76 of the Petition, the Petitioner alluded to “votes recorded”, “uploaded results”, and “scores” which are neither stated nor specified. Also, in paragraphs 77 and 78 of the Petition, alleged “instances” were referred to without specifying what those instances are.
(v) In paragraph 79 of the Petition, allegation of corrupt practices was made without any specifics as required by law. Same vagueness and lack of particulars afflict paragraphs 83 and 99 of the Petition where allegations were made in respect of unspecified Polling Units, Collation Centres, and results.

4. The Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the Ground of the Petition alleging non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022 as contained in paragraph 20(ii) thereof as constituted for being caught by issue estoppel and thereby academic.
5. The entire Petition is defective for failure to join necessary parties whose rights and interest is/are affected by the reliefs sought and issues to be determined in the Petition.
6. In view of the foregoing, the Petition is abusive of the court process and not fit for a Court/Tribunal duly constituted by law and the Constitution.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND/OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, the 1st Respondent formulates its reply to the petition as follows:

SAVE AND EXCEPT as is herein expressly admitted, the 1st Respondent denies each and every allegation of facts contained in the Petition as if such averments are specifically set out and traversed seriatim.

1. The 1st Respondent does admit paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Petition.
2. The 1st Respondent puts the Petitioners to the strictest proof of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition.
3. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 5 of the Petition only to the extent that the 1st Petitioner was a candidate at the election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on the 25th day of February 2023 {“the election”}. The is 1st Respondent denies that the 1st Petitioner has a right to be returned as elected, not having polled majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and/or secured one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all states in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
4. In response to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers as follows:
   (i) All political parties intending to sponsor candidates in the election were required to submit lists of their agents to the 1st Respondent. The Guidelines issued by the 1st Respondent required all political parties to submit the list of their agents between the 21st of December 2022 and the 20th of January 2023 via an online portal provided by the 1st Respondent.
   (ii) These political party agents, on election day, were expected to observe the election process at their units. sign and collect result sheets on behalf of their political parties at the close of polls.
   (iii) Some of the political party agents whose names were on the list submitted to the 1st Respondent were however absent at their polling units while some others who were present neglected to participate in the election process.
   (iv) The Petitioners did not have Polling Agents in all the Polling Units across Nigeria as they (the Petitioners) only submitted a list of 134, 874 Polling Agents which is 41, 972 short of the 176, 846 polling units across Nigeria. The 1st Respondent pleads and shall rely upon the List of Agents submitted by the 2nd Petitioner at the trial of the Petition.
   (v) The 1st Respondent denies that the Petitioners’ Polling Agents were present at all Polling units across Nigeria. Even with respect to the Polling Units covered by the List of Agents submitted by the Petitioners, the Petitioners were not represented by Agents in many and/or some of the Polling Units.
5. The 1st Respondent denies that any “complaints about anomalies” were reported to its officers as alleged in Paragraph 9 of the Petition and puts the Petitioners to the strictest proof.
6. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph l0 of the Petition.
7. The 1st Respondent admits paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Petition and states in addition that the election was successfully conducted by the 1st Respondent in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act 2022, the Regulations and Guidelines issued by the 1st Respondent.
8. The 1st Respondent denies that the 2nd Respondent was not duly sponsored and not qualified to contest the election as alleged in paragraph 13 of the Petition. The l st Respondent further states that the 2nd Respondent was duly returned as the winner of the Presidential election conducted on the 25th of February 2023.
9. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 14 of the Petition only to the extent that the 3rd Respondent contested on a joint ticket with the 2nd Respondent and was returned as winner along with the 2nd Respondent in the election. The 1st Respondent further states that the 2nd Respondent was duly nominated and sponsored to contest the election.
10. ln response to paragraph 15 of the Petition, the I s1 Respondent avers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which duly sponsored the 2nd and 3rd Respondents at the election.
11. In response to paragraph 16 of the Petition, the 1s1 Respondent admits that the Petitioners are parties interested in the Petition. parties that may be affected by the outcome of the Petition that have not been joined.
12. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 17 of the Petition and states that the scores tabulated are as recorded in the Form EC8E (declaration of results form).
13. The 1st Respondent denies the Petitioners’ tabulation in paragraph 18 of the Petition as it does not represent an accurate summary of the election results or statistics.
14. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 19 of the Petition and states
15. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 20 of the Petition and states that the election is not voided or in any way impaired on any of the Grounds set out in Paragraphs 20(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Petition and puts the Petitioners to the strictest proof of the alleged grounds.
16. The 1st Respondent in further answer to paragraph 20 states that:
    (i) The 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election duly qualified to contest the election.
    (ii) The election of the 2nd Respondent was not invalidated by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.
    (iii) The 2nd Respondent was duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.

REPLY TO GROUND 1: THE 2ND RESPONDENT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION NOT QUALIFIED TO CONTEST THE ELECTION.

17. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 21 of the Petition only to the extent that a candidate for election to the office of the President shall nominate another person who is to occupy the office of the Vice-President as a running mate and avers further that contrary to the other averments in paragraph 21 of the Petition, the 2nd Respondent duly nominated the 3rd Respondent as his Vice-Presidential candidate.
18. The 1st Respondent denies that the 3rd Respondent was at the time of his nomination as a Vice Presidential candidate also a candidate for the Borno Central Senatorial District election as alleged in paragraph 22 of the Petition.
19. The 1st Respondent states that at the time of the nomination of the 3rd Respondent as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the 4th Respondent, the 3ro Respondent was no longer the Senatorial candidate for the Borno Central Senatorial District having withdrawn his nomination by a letter dated the 6th of July 2022 addressed to the 4th Respondent and received by the 1st Respondent on the 13th July 2022. The 1st Respondent shall rely on the 3rd Respondent’s Withdrawal Letter and the 41h Respondent’s letter to the 1st Respondent.
20. The 1st Respondent shall contend that Form EC1 1C referred to in paragraph 23 (iv) of the Petition is not relevant or material to the nomination of the 3rd Respondent as Vice-Presidential candidate. Form EC I IC was in respect of the nomination of the new candidate for the Borno Central Senatorial District election after the conduct of fresh primary election for that office.
21. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 24 of the Petition and avers in response that at the time of the nomination of the 3rd Respondent as Vice-Presidential candidate, the 3rd Respondent had ceased to be a candidate for the Borno Central Senatorial District election.
22. The 1st Respondent avers and shall at the trial contend that the withdrawal of a candidate’s nomination for an election is effective from the date when his notice of withdrawal is conveyed to the 1st Respondent by the political party that nominated him.
23. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 25 of the Petition and puts the Petitioners to the strictest proof of the averments contained therein.
24. Contrary to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that the 3rd Respondent having withdrawn his nomination for Borno Central Senatorial District by his Letter dated 6th July 2022 was not nominated in more than one Constituency as alleged by the Petitioners.
25. The 1st Respondent states in response to the averments in paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Petition that the 1st Respondent is not aware of the alleged conviction of the 2nd Respondent as stated in in the referenced paragraphs of the Petition.
26. The 1st Respondent denies that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were not qualified to contest the election and that the votes recorded for the 2nd Respondent were wasted or invalid votes as alleged in paragraph 32 of the Petition. The 1st Respondent also denies that the 1st Petitioner obtained the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election or met the constitutional requirements to be declared and returned the winner. The 1st Respondent states that the results of the election were as formally declared and as stated in paragraph 17 of the Petition,
27. ln further response to paragraph 32 of the petition, the 1st Respondent avers that the 1st Petitioner was second runner up at the election and did not meet the constitutional requirements to be declared and returned as winner of the election. The 1st Respondent shall therefore further contend that having not satisfied the constitutional requirements, the 1st Petitioner could not and cannot be declared winner of the election.

REPLY TO ALLEGATIONS OF NON-COMPLIANCE

28. The 1st Respondent admits that pursuant to its powers under the Constitution and Section 148 of the Electoral Act 2022, it issued and published “Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022”. The Regulations and Guidelines apply to the conduct of elections to the offices listed in paragraph 1 of the Regulations. The 1st Respondent also admits that it issued and published “Manual for Election Officials, 2023”. The Manual, however, provides basic operational instructions and guidance on processes and procedures for the conduct of elections in Nigeria taking into consideration the legal requirements and the 1st Respondent’s policy on conducting elections.
29. The 1st Respondent, in response to paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Petition admits that since 2011, it has made concerted efforts to improve the quality of elections by the use of appropriate technology and technological devices to enhance the ease credibility, transparency and integrity of the electoral process. These efforts include the introduction and use of Permanent Voter Card (PVC), the Electronic Voter Register (EVR), the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and technological devices to assist Persons with Disabilities (PWDs). BVAS is a system that comprises software and hardware components. It allows for voter authentication using fingerprint and facial recognition technology. It can also be used to scan and electronically transmit Polling Unit election results to the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal.
30. The 1st Respondent states that the public statements credited to its officials as pleaded in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Petition were statements assuring the public of the 1st Respondent’s commitment and determination to continue the use of technology and technological devices to enhance the quality, transparency, integrity, and credibility of the electoral process as provided under the Electoral Act 2022. The 1st Respondent states however, that the use of such technology is as prescribed by it pursuant to the Electoral Act and the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022.
31. Further to the above, the 1st Respondent duly prescribed the use of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) to verify, confirm and authenticate voters at a Polling Unit which said BVAS was duly deployed and used in the conduct of the election. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 37 of the Petition only to the extent that Presiding Officers at each Polling Unit are required to electronically transmit the results of the election at the Polling Units upon conclusion of the polls and tabulation of scores in the Form EC8A using the BVAS device to the Result Viewing Portal (IReV). The 1st Respondent denies that there was a “collation system of the 1st Respondent” to which Polling Unit results were mandatorily required to be electronically transmitted or transferred directly by the Presiding officer. In further response to paragraph 37 of the Petition, the 1s1 Respondent shall contend that the prescribed mode of collation of results is as stipulated in paragraphs 50-55 of the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022. The prescribed mode of collation was “manual collation” of the various Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E of the Presidential election.
32. In further answer to paragraph 37 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that as explained and detailed in its Manual for Election Officials 2023, the BVAS is designed to:
    (i) upload the accreditation data at the end of the accreditation process.
    (ii) scan and transmit the result of the election at a Polling Unit through the e-transmission system which is then uploaded to the P1 Respondent’s Result Viewing (IReV) Portal. The application on the IReV is designed to automatically sort the uploaded results by the type of election, State, Local Government Area, Ward and Polling Unit.
33. The upload of data or images captured and automatically stored on the BVAS device requires data service. Where there is no data service or where the service is poor, the BVAS device is designed to work offline. The upload of data will occur when data service is available. The 1st Respondent avers and shall at trial contend that the design of the BVAS system to work offline does not affect the integrity of the process of uploading accreditation data to INEC system or the upload of the election result to the IReV Portal. The accreditation data and the election results at a Polling Unit are preserved on the BVAS device and uploaded or exported when data service is available.
34. The 1st Respondent admits paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the Petition only as it relates to the use of BVAS in the accreditation process and that voting is to be in accordance with the Continuous Accreditation and Voting System (CVAS) and avers further that the specific functions of BVAS in the conduct of the election are as follows:
    (i) For verification of the Voters details at the election by reading the Voters Permanent Voters Card (PVC).
    (ii) Authenticate the bearer of a Permanent Voters Card for a Polling Unit as the legitimate owner of the PVC by either fingerprint matching or facial recognition.
    (iii) To store the number of accredited voters at the polling unit.
    (iv) To scan and upload Polling Unit Result Sheet on the lReV portal.
35. ln further response to paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent states that its Manual for Election Officials 2023 sets out detailed guidelines on the use of BVAS for accreditation of voters. These include the following:
    (i) Collecting the PVC from a Voter.
    (ii) Type the Voter’s last name in the field provided OR scan the bar code on the PVC or the QR code in the Register of Voters.
    (iii) Search the Voters record by clicking the accreditation button on the BVAS. Where the Voter information is displayed registered in the Polling Unit, the Voter is thus verified.
    (iv) The fingerprint and photograph of the Voter is then verified and authenticated by requesting the Voter to place his or her finger on the fingerprint window of the BVAS.
    Where the fingerprint is confirmed, verification is successful. The camera of the BYAS is then used to capture a passport photo of the Voter for the purpose of verifying his photograph.
    (v) Where the above is successfully completed, the verified Voter details will be checked in the manual Register of Voters to confirm that the Voter’s name, details and Voter Identification Number (VIN) are as contained in the Register of Voters.
    (vi) The appropriate box of the horizontal boxes on the right margin beside the Voter’s details on the Register showing the category of election is then ticked manually.
36. The 1st Respondent avers and shall at trial contend that the role of the BVAS in the Accreditation process is for the verification and authentication of the Voter’s details and the primary source of accreditation remains the Voter’s Register for each Polling Unit which is resorted to after the Voter’s PVC has been verified and the Voter has been duly authenticated using the BVAS.
37. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 41 of the Petition and in response thereto states that where the BVAS fails to authenticate or verify an intending voter such intending voter will not be allowed to vote.
38. The 1st Respondent admits that the role of the Presiding Officer after accreditation and casting of votes in each polling unit is as described in paragraphs 42, 43 and 44 of the Petition.
39. Illegible
40. illegible
41. Illegible
42. prescribed storage portal on which results can be accessed for the purpose of the determination of this Petition or review of the election is the IRev portal. The is1 Respondent shall at trial contend that any alleged results or data generated by the Petitioners either from an alleged AWS data warehouse or any other storage cloud howsoever is false and not to be countenanced for the purpose of the election.
43. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 49 of the Petition and avers in response that no Polling Unit election result is stored on the virtual servers on the AWS or the Amazon Cloud Platform as alleged by the Petitioners. The only Polling Units Results are those uploaded on the 1st Respondent’s IReV portal which is hosted by Amazon Web Services (AWS).
44. In response to paragraph 50 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that whilst it is true that, at the Registration Areas (RA)/Ward Collation Centres, Collation Officers are required to ascertain that the number of accredited Voters corresponds with the number captured in the BVAS, and that the votes of the parties corresponds with the result electronically transmitted directly from the Polling Units before collating the results, it is also required of the Collation Officers to use the !51 Respondent’s Copy of the results from the Polling Unit in the event that no results have been electronically transmitted from a Polling Unit. Where that does not also exist, the Collation Officer shall request for the duplicate hard copies issued to the Nigerian Police Force and the agents of Political Parties in that order.
45. The 1st Respondent avers in response to paragraph 51 of the Petition that State Collation Officers are not required by the “Guidelines” to electronically transmit results from States to the National Collation Centre and. in any event the 1st Respondent in resolving disputes over election results is entitled to use duplicate hard copies of collated results issued by it to the Nigeria Police Force and Agents of Political Parties.
46. In further response to paragraph 51 of the Petition that the substance of the Petitioners’ objection at the National Collation Centre relates to issues of verification of Polling Units results on the IReV which ought to have been raised and dealt with at the Ward collation level and could not have been dealt with at the National Collation Centre. The Petitioners’ agents became disruptive and angrily walked out of the National Collation Centre upon being informed by the lst Respondent’s National Collation Officer that their complaints were inappropriately raised. By paragraph 91 (iii) of the “Guidelines” complaints are to be heard and resolved in so far as they are not disruptive. The 1st Respondent shall therefore contend at trial that any alleged video clip or reportage of the Petitioners’ Agent alleged disputation of the results at the National Collation Centre without the ruling of the National Collation Officer on same and the decision to continue with the collation process is incomplete and manifestly unreliable.
47. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 52 of the Petition only to the extent that the Form EC8A scanned and uploaded through the BVAS is to reflect the result which originated from the Polling Units. In further response to paragraph 52 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent states that at each level of collation results to be assessed are the collated results from the immediate lower level of collation such that results from Polling Units can only be effectively validated for the purpose of resolving any dispute at the Ward Collation Centres in the presence of the Ward Collation Agents of the Political parties.
48. Further to the above, the BVAS for each Polling Unit are submitted to the Ward Collation Officer for the Ward covering the Polling Unit for collation purposes and the Ward Collation Officer is to scrutinize the accreditation data and scanned results as contained in the BYAS for verification of the contents of the Forms EC8A for the Polling Unit which at the election was duly done and the results collated after the verification.
49. The 1st Respondent in response to paragraph 53 of the Petition states that Polling Unit results were duly uploaded on the 1st Respondent’s e-transmission system by the respective Presiding Officers at the end of election but some of the results were not visible on the IReV portal due to technical glitch experienced on the election day.
50. ln further response to paragraph 53 of the Petition, the I st Respondent states that all Polling Units results were uploaded by the Presiding Officers at the Polling Units to the Isi Respondent e­ transmission system immediately at the close of polls. Further, there was no violation of the 1st Respondent’s Regulations and the Electoral Act 2022 which allegedly gave room for manipulation of the results.
51. The 1st Respondent in response to paragraph 54 of the Petition reiterates paragraph 57 of its Reply below and, in any event, there is no mandatory requirement that the Polling Units results must be fully uploaded on the IReV portal before a declaration of the winner of the election can be made.
52. By the judgment delivered in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 between Labour Party v Independent National Electoral Commission by Honourable Justice Emeka Nwite on the 23rd of January, 2023, where the court held that by the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 1st Respondent has a discretion as to how results are to be transmitted and that the 1si Respondent is not mandated to use only electronic means in collating or transferring election results. The 151 respondent pleads and shall found upon the judgment in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 at trial.
53. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 55 of the Petition as false and unwarranted and avers in response that the integrity· and safety measures entrenched for the conduct of the election were duly observed by the 1st Respondent’s Officials when they timeously uploaded the Polling Unit results such that there was no non-­ compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 as alleged and the requirements of the Regulations for the conduct of the election. The referenced election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and all the Electoral Guidelines and Manual.
54. The 1st Respondent denies the averments contained in paragraph 56 of the Petition and puts the Petitioners to the strictest proof of same. Contrary to paragraph 56 of the Petition, the Electoral Act 2022 mandates the 1st Respondent to compile, maintain and update on a CONTINUOUS basis, a register of election results to be known as the National Electronic Register of Election Results as a distinct database or repository of Polling Unit by Polling Unit results.
55. ln further answer to paragraph 55 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent specifically avers as follows:
    (i) The 1st Respondent electronically transmitted the Polling Unit results of the election to its e-transmission system which is the NERER (IReV) contemplated by section 62(2) of the Electoral Act 2022 and did not fail, refuse or neglect to do so as falsely alleged by the Petitioners.
    (ii) However, the result transmission system adopted by the l s1 Respondent is made up of two components namely:
    a) The e-transmission and
    b) The IReV
    (iii) The e-transmission application and the IReV – The e-trans appli Services (AWS). Whilst the e-Transmission is the core Portal that receives the result from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) for each Polling Unit, the lReV is the public facing end of the result transmission system.
    (i.) Upon transmission of the results from the BYAS in a Polling Unit to the e-transmission system, the results which are not interfered with and retained in their original state are then grouped and organized according to the particular election held into the relevant State, Local Government Area, Ward and Polling Unit and pushed to the IReV.
    (ii.) The two components of the result transmission system were introduced as a result of the experience of the 151 Respondent in previous stand-alone elections where results were electronically transmitted.
    (iii.) In the Osun State Governorship election held on the 16th of July 2022, where results were electronically transmitted, it was observed that the results uploaded to JReV were not organized, they were dumped on the system according to time stamps, therefore when the political parties requested for certified true copies of the results uploaded on IReV, it took the 1st Respondent a lot of time to generate and print the uploaded results.
    (iv.) It is in a hid to prevent same situation that the result transmission system was upgraded to organise election results files into its folder i.e ELECTION/STATE/LGA/WARD/POLLING UNITS.
    (v.) The 1st Respondent further created three modules ( for Presidential, Senatorial and Federal Constituents into which election results were to be pushed to the IReV portal.
    (vii.) Immediately after the election on 25th February 2023. Polling Unit results were uploaded and received by the e­ transmission system whilst using the BVAS there was a temporary failure of communication between the e­ transmission system and the IReV portal for the Presidential election. In this regard, the e-transmission system returned an HTTP 500 error which is an application error such that the transmitted results though received on the e-transmission application hosted on the AWS, the e-transmission could not organize and push the results instantly to the Presidential module on the lReV portal because it could not map the results uploaded for the Presidential election to any State. The 1st Respondent pleads and shall rely on the AWS CloudTrail logs indicating patches deployed to fix the error/technical glitch on the election day.

(viii.) The 1st Respondent avers and shall further demonstrate at trial that the HTTP 500 error on the e-transmission system which delayed the instant push of the results transmitted from the Polling Units to the IReV portal did not in any way alter, affect or vitiate the original results from the Polling Units which in their original form are stored in the BVAS and were utilized by the Ward Collation Officers at the Ward Collation Centres to validate and verify the original copies of the Polling Unit results.
(ix.) The 1st Respondent shall further contend that the technical glitch did not in any way affect the result of the election.
(x.) Upon resolution of the HTTP 500 error, the results which were delayed in the e-transmission system were eventually organized and pushed to the IReV portal. The results are available as generated in their original form from the Polling Units using the BVAS.

56. In response to paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Petition which are hereby denied, the 1st Respondent states that certified true copies of election documents and data requested by the Petitioners and duly paid for were provided to them. Further, the 1st Respondent states that it complied with the order of inspection granted by this Honourable Court by directing its State Offices to grant access to the Petitioners’ agents/representatives for the purpose of inspecting election documents when they present themselves. The 1st Respondent shall rely on the its Procedure for issuance of certified true copies of documents in state and FCT offices.
57. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 59 of the Petition in its entirety and avers in response that its Officials duly recorded in the prescribed Forms the quantity, serial numbers and other particulars of result sheets, ballot papers and other sensitive electoral materials on the prescribed Forms EC25A, EC25A (I), EC8B and EC8B (I) in respect of the States where the 2nd Respondent duly won the election as done in the States where the Petitioners won the election as the procedure adopted in the election across all States of the Federation are uniform and the same.
58. The 1st Respondent further avers that it duly complied with the order of inspection granted by the Honourable Court and the Petitioners were not denied access to the Forms EC25A, EC25A(I), EC8B and EC8B(I) either as alleged by the Petitioners. The Petitioners are put to the strictest proof of the averment in paragraph 59 of the Petition.
59. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 60 of the Petition. The Petitioners are put to the strictest proof of the averment in paragraph 60 of the Petition and avers specifically in response that no alleged votes of the Petitioners were suppressed, and the alleged 18,088 (Eighteen Thousand and Eighty-Eight) Polling Units exist only in the imagination of the Petitioners. The 1s1 Respondent further avers that the results of the election as uploaded on the IReV portal are readable and reflect the lawful scores of all the candidates at the election.
60. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 61 of the Petition and avers in response that the 1st Respondent’s Officials did not mischievously upload any blurred Forms EC8A for Benue State neither was any alleged attempt made to supress lawful result of the election in Polling Units in Benue State. The alleged Polling Unit codes and details which at the time of this Reply are not disclosed are non-existent. Any alleged Spread Sheet/Forensic Report of the election in the Polling Units in Benue State to the contrary is contrived and concocted by the Petitioners for the purpose of this Petition.
61. Contrary to paragraphs 62 of the Petition, the actual votes scores obtained at the Polling Units in Rivers State by the candidates are as announced at the National Collation Centre from the collated results presented from the immediate lower level of collation to the National Collation Officer. The 1s1 Respondent pleads and shall at trial rely on its Form EC8D for Rivers State.
62. In response to paragraph 63 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that as mandated and statutorily required, the 1si Respondent utilized the original results from the Polling Units as recorded in the Form EC8A which are in tandem with the results uploaded on the IReV portal in collating the results from Rivers State. It is not correct to say the Petitioners won and would have won the election in Rivers State having regard to the actual results from the Polling Units in Rivers State at the election. The 151 Respondent denies any allegation of uploading fictitious forms on the IReV)
63. The 1st Respondent denies paragraphs 64 of the Petition and avers in response that the scores from the Polling Units in Benue State as announced during the collation of results are the actual votes scored by the candidates at the election. The 1st Respondent avers that no vote scored by the Petitioners were supressed as alleged. At any rate, the 1st Respondent shall at trial contend that the failure of the 1st Respondent to disclose the exact Polling units referred to at the time of this Reply renders paragraph 64 and the averments in same incompetent.
64. The 1st Respondent avers in response to paragraph 65 of the Petition that the result of the election in Benue State was correctly announced and the Petitioners who did not win the election could not have been denied as the winner. Any alleged Forensic Report stating any fact contrary to the correctly announced result is concocted and contrived by the Petitioners for the purpose of this Petition. The Petitioners are otherwise put to the strictest proof of the averment in paragraph 65 of the Petition.
65. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 66 of the Petition as false, and Respondent is not embarking on any misrepresentation and manipulation or uploading any fictitious results in Polling Units where there was no election or uploading incorrect results as alleged. The actual scores of the Petitioners are as announced by the 1st Respondent and was not reduced, tampered with or falsely represented in the results uploaded in the IReV which reflects actual results from the Polling Units.
66. ln response to paragraph 67 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that any Forensic Report alleging and/or ascribing votes or scores at the election other than those declared and announced by the 1st Respondent have been contrived and concocted for the purpose of this Petition. The 1st Respondent further avers that the averment of the Petitioners in paragraph 67 of the Petition contradicts the averments in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Petition in respect of the alleged non-compliance of the 1st Respondent with the order of inspection granted by the Honourable Court.
67. Contrary to paragraph 68 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that the scores of the Petitioners were neither reduced nor added by the 1si Respondent to the scores of the 2nd Respondent either as alleged or at all. The 1st Respondent did not upload any blurred result which were in favour of the Petitioners on the lReV in order to conceal them. At any rate, the 1st Respondent’s copy of the results which are in tandem with the counterpart copies issued to Political party agents were adopted in the collation of the results of the election as they were available.
68. In response to paragraph 69 of the Petition, the 151 Respondent avers that the prayer of the Petitioners for deduction of non­ existent unlawful scores added to the 2nd Respondent and for the non-existent votes or scores to be credited to the Petitioners’ scores is without any basis. The 1st Respondent shall at trial urge the Honourable Cou11 to disregard the Petitioners’ Prayers as contained in paragraph 69 of the Petition. The 1st Respondent avers that there is no score to be deducted from the 2nd Respondent’s scores as none was unlawfully added to the scores of the 2nd Respondent as alleged by the Petitioners. The Petitioners who did not poll the highest number of votes cast in the election could not have been declared winner of the election.
69. In response to paragraph 70 of the Petition, the t5t Respondent avers that the results of the Polling Units, Wards, Local Governments and States at the election have been properly tabulated and stated in the electoral result Forms used for the election as required by the Electoral Act and the Regulations and Guidelines for the election (which result Forms are hereby specifically pleaded) and show clearly that the Petitioners are the second runner up at the election and did not meet the constitutional requirements to have been declared the winner of the election. Any alleged Report of the Inspection conducted by the Petitioners as ordered by the Honourable Court to the contrary is false and concocted by the Petitioners for the purpose of this Petition.
70. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 71 of the Petition and avers in response that the Petitioners did not win the election as the correct Polling Unit result uploaded to the IReV and supported by the accreditation on the BYAS has been duly taken into consideration in the final results as announced by the 1st Respondent. The Petitioners are put ta of the contrary.
71. The 1s, Respondent admits paragraph 72 of the Petition only to the extent that votes cast at a Polling Unit should not be more than the total number of accredited voters in the BVAS. All other averments contained in the said paragraph are denied.
72. ln further response to paragraph 72 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that it is not true that the votes cast in the alleged Polling Units (which are not disclosed at the time of this Reply) in Ekiti State, Oyo State, Ondo State, Taraba State, Osun State, Kano State, Rivers State, Borno State, Katsina State, Kwara State, Gombe State, Yobe State and Niger State exceeded the number of votes accredited on the BVAS in those States. The Petitioners are put to the strictest proof.
73. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 73 of the Petition and avers in response that based on the uploaded results and the 1st Respondent’s copy which is in tandem with the hard copies and counterpart copies issued to the Nigeria Police Force and the Political party agents, the votes recorded for the 2nd Respondent are a correct reflection of the votes scored by the candidates in those States during the Presidential election on 25th February 2023. The said votes cast in the States referred to in the Petition to wit; Rivers, Lagos, Taraba, Benue, Adamawa, Imo, Bauchi, Borno, Kaduna; and Plateau or Other States of the Federation.
74. Contrary to paragraph 74 of the Petition, the 1″ Respondent duly complied with its Regulations in announcing the result of the election. The fact of the full upload or otherwise of the Polling Unit results on the IReV does not vitiate the declaration of the results of the election.
75. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 75 of the Petition and in response avers that the results and details recorded on the Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E upon which the results of the election was declared is a product of due compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and the 1st Respondent’s Regulations mandating the process of accreditation, voting, counting, recording of votes and uploading to the 1st Respondent’s IReV portal using the BVAS.
76. The averments contained in paragraph 76 of the Petition are hereby denied and in response avers that there are no votes to be deducted from the scores of the 2nd Respondent declared by the 151 Respondent as no instance of over voting produced any of the scores declared. The allegation of the Petitioners that the margin of lead between the 2nd Respondent and the Petitioners will be far less than the number of those who have collected their PVCs and ought to vote in Polling Units (which are in the imagination of the Petitioners and unidentified/unknown) if alleged deductions are made is unfounded. The 1st Respondents complied with the Electoral Act 2022 and its Electoral Guidelines and Manual in the declaration of the results of the election.
77. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 77 of the Petition and avers in response that there are no instances of over-voting in the conduct of the election in more places than those stated on the Form EC40G(iii). The Petitioners are put to the strictest proof of the averment in paragraph 77 of the Petition.
78. The 1st Respondent vehemently denies paragraph 78 of the Petition and avers in response that there are no instances of non-compliance with the Electoral Act which substantially affected the outcome of the election. By the total votes cast, the Petitioners who did not meet the constitutional requirement both in respect of the highest number of votes and geographical spread could not have emerged winner of the election.

REPLY TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICES

79. The 1st Respondent avers in response to paragraph 79 of the Petition that the pleadings in support of the Ground of non-compliance which are generic, self-contradictory, and bereft of the requisite particulars will not avail the Petitioners on the unfounded allegation of corrupt practices. The 1st Respondent hereby adopts and repeat its pleadings in response to the allegations of non-compliance in paragraphs 29-80 and shall at trial contend that the election was not marred by any corrupt practices as alleged by the Petitioners.
    The 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.
80. The 1st Respondent does not dispute paragraph 80 of the Petition.
81. The 1st Respondent admits paragraph 81 of the Petition only to the extent that since the election was contested by more than 2(two) candidates. a candidate shall be declared winner only if he scores the highest number of votes cast at the election and he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of the 36(thirty-six) States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The 1st Respondent denies the other averments in paragraph 81 of the Petition and avers that the 2nd Respondent not only scored highest number of the lawful votes cast at the election but has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and was rightfully declared and returned elected.
82. In further response to paragraph 82 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that the 2nd Respondent who satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared winner of the election was duly declared as the winner of the election hence recourse to a second election is not necessary in the circumstances.
83. In response to paragraph 83 of the Petition. which is hereby denied as false. The 1st Respondent avers and shall at trial contend that the declared result of the election duly complied with the Electoral Act 2022, and the 1st Respondent’s Regulations established for scrutinizing the result of the election at the Polling Units and the Collation centres. The 1st respondent reiterates that the proper computation of the result of the election as done in the declared result by the 1st Respondent reveals that the Petitioners lost the election and did not score majority of the lawful votes cast nor satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared winner of the election.
84. The 1st Respondent admits paragraphs 84 and 85 of the Petition only to the extent that the 1st Respondent deployed the use of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the IReV for the election. The 1st Respondent denies any electronic result collation system or portal and avers that the technology deployed for the purpose of the election was to ensure transparency and guarantee the integrity of the electoral process and were fully utilized at the election.
85. In response to paragraph 86 of the Petition. the 1st Respondent denies that the BVAS was designed to transmit Polling Units results directly to an alleged AWS Virtual Server. The 1st Respondent avers that the BVAS was designed to transmit Polling Unit results to the e-transmission application which in tum groups, sorts and uploads the results according to the particular election held into the State, Local Government Areas, Wards and Polling Units on THE iRev.
86. Further to the above and in response to paragraph 87 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers the procedure of verifying and confirming. the numbers of accredited voters as stated in the collated the results were duly complied with by the 1st Respondent in the election, as the BVAS system were available to the Ward collation agents as received from the Presiding Officers of the Polling Units.
87. ln response to paragraphs 88 and 89 of the Petition, the 1s1 Respondent avers that by the procedure specified in its Regulations and Guidelines as well as Manual for Election Officials 2023, in the event of a dispute in the collation process as to what transpired at the Polling Unit when there are no electronically transmitted results, the Collation or Returning Officer is obliged to use and adopt the 1st Respondent’s copy of the Polling Unit results or hard copies of the counterparts issued to security agents and political party agents in that order.
88. The 1st Respondent further avers that at the election, the Collation Officer duly verified and ascertained the number of accredited voters as recorded in the BYAS which was delivered to them by the Presiding Officers at the Polling Units in their Ward and therefore had no reason not to proceed with the collation of results.
89. The 1st Respondent does not dispute paragraphs 90 and 91 of the Petition.
90. In response to paragraph 92 of the Petition, the is 1st Respondent avers as follows:
    (i) ln order to increase the efficiency and capacity of the result transmission system, the 1st Respondent recently upgraded the result transmission system so as to accommodate its deployment for the Presidential Election, as well as for the management of multiple election types. The upgraded result transmission system consists of cloud infrastructure scaling on both the IReV portal and e­Transmission system.
    (ii) The upgraded System was deployed for the stand-alone Governorship election held on l61h July 2022 in Osun State. The System performed excellently well in the 2022 Osun Governorship election. However, it was observed that the Results uploaded to the IReV were not organized, they were dumped on the System according to time stamp, therefore, when the Political Parties requested for certify true copy (CTC) of the Results uploaded to the IReV, it took the I51 Respondent a lot of time to generate and print the uploaded results.
    (iii) Due to the difficulty in generating and printing of the uploaded results to the IReV, the System was further improved to organize result files better than the one deployed for the Osun 2022 Governorship election, so that every election result will be organized into its own folder i.e., ELECTION/ST ATE/LGA/W ARD/POLLING-UNIT to make it easy to download and print. This improvement on the System was tested, for functionality as well as for stress and load balancing, before its final deployment for the 2023 General Election.
    (iv) At the end of polls in some Polling Units on the 25th February 2023 it was observed that results being uploaded to the e-transmission System by the Presiding Officers (POs) were pushed to the Senate and House of Representatives Modules on the JReV but were not being pushed to the Presidential Module. Based on the threat levels and reports from the security agencies especially the report that the l51 Respondent’s servers may be subjected to attacks on election day, the 151 Respondent’s first cause of action was to investigate if this was an attack on the servers.
    (v) Preliminary investigation showed that the servers were not under attack. The servers were running and handling request successfully for non-presidential election uploads. The issue was a HTTP 500 error. This category of errors originates from within the application, mostly due to issues relating to configuration, permissions, or failure to create application resources correctly.
    (vi) After thorough investigation, it was discovered that the e­ Transmission system was encountering the HTTP 500 error because it was unable to map the results uploaded for Presidential Election to any Specific State. The presidential folder structure, which was meant to organize the uploaded result sheet in the order of ELECTION/STATE/LGA/WARD/POLLING-UNIT, was causing the application to crash and return a server error. The application crashed whenever it tried to create the folder structure for the Presidential election.
    (vii) Creating a folder structure to organize the uploaded results in the hierarchy of ELECTION/STATE/LGA/WARD/POLLING-UNIT was a new feature introduced as an improvement in the e­ Transmission system. The Old e-transmission randomly saved uploaded results by time stamps, making it difficult to download results sheets by election or by state. This issue was observed after the Osun 2022 Governorship election when the Political Parties requested the uploaded results. It was difficult to download these results sheet because they were not organized in a folder structure hierarchically.
    (viii) The new feature to organize the results sheets was meant to make it easy to download all result sheets for an election from one single folder. In reference to the above, for the application to create this folder structure it makes a query to the database, to get the base State of the election.
    (ix) The application was able to query and detect the base States for the Senatorial districts and Federal constituencies based on the mapping of all senatorial districts and federal constituencies to their respective States. This mapping currently exists in the database. Every Senatorial district and Federal constituencies on the database belong to a State. The upload succeeded because the application was able to identify the State and build the folder hierarchy for the results organization. But for the Presidential election, the application crashed because the Presidential election does not belong to any State on the pt Respondent’s database and any attempt by the application to build a folder structure to organize the election results failed with a HTTP 500 error response.
    (x) Noting that these were live servers and actively being used for the election, extra care was taken to ensure we do not cause a complete outage. There were four (4) application patches/ updates created and deployed immediately with the aim of fixing the HTTP 500 error.
    (xi) The first Presidential election result was successfully uploaded at 8.55pm on the 25th February 2023. In order to check and confirm that the glitch actually happened, the time that all patches to fix the error were created and deployed can be viewed on AWS CloudTrail, an AWS functionality that allows enabling operational and risk auditing. All actions taken to fix the error are recorded as events in CloudTrail logs which are hereby pleaded and shall be relied upon at trial.
    (xii) The 1st Respondent states and reiterates that notwithstanding the foregoing, the integrity of the election was still preserved, and the technological glitch did not affect and/or substantially affect the result of the election.
91. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 93 of the Petition and avers in response that the 1st Respondent did not receive data in respect of the election into an unscheduled device either as alleged or at all. The Respondent avers that the URL referenced in paragraph 93 of the Petition is not a public portal but used by the 1st Respondent’s Officials to view results during performance testing on the result transmission system. The IReV portal is hnps://inecelectionsresults.ng. The Continuous Voters Registration (CVR) portal is the https://cvr.inecnigeria.org/results. This is also hosted on the AWS Web Cloud Service. The 1st Respondent used the CVR infrastructure as a fail over and back up for the e­ transmission system when the technological glitch occurred. The CVR portal is not a result viewing portal but directs any person who visits the portal to the IReV.
92. The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 94 of the Petition and puts the Petitioners to the strictest proof.
93. ln response to paragraph 95 of the Petition, the pt Respondent hereby adopts its earlier averments on the technological glitch experienced in respect of the real time upload of the election results as well as the Amazon CloudTrail logs of the e-transmission system.
94. In response to paragraph 96 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers and shall at trial contend that the standard collation procedures for collation of results were duly and substantially complied with in the election. The results of the election were therefore transmitted with the IReV as envisaged by law in a manner which guarantees the integrity and security of the election.
95. In response to paragraph 97 of the Petition, the pt Respondent denies that there was any non-compliance with the requirements of the Electoral Act 2022, and the Regulations and Guidelines for conduct of the election. The 1st Respondent further avers that the written communication of the 1st Respondent on the technological glitches experienced in the electronic system that prevented real time upload of the election results on the IReV is not an excuse but a statement of fact in relation to what transpired. The 1st Respondent shall rely on the Amazon Cloud Trail logs of the e-transmission.
96. Further to the above, the 1st Respondent reiterates that the technological glitch referred to above did not substantially affect the result of the election either as alleged by the Petitioners or at all.
97. In response to paragraph 98 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent denies that the technological glitches experienced were a ploy to credit unlawful votes to the 2nd Respondent. Further to the above, the 1st Respondent reiterates that the technological glitches referred to above did not substantially affect the results of the election as alleged by the Petitioners.
98. In response to paragraph 99 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent denies that substantial votes were unlawfully credited to the 2nd Respondent. The results obtained from the IReV portal and other copies of the Forms EC8A will only show that only lawful votes were credited to the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent equally denies that numerous Press Statements were made by its leadership to explain any alleged crediting of massive unlawful votes to the 2nd Respondent. The averment of the Petitioners in this regard is utter falsehood and unwarranted.
99. In response to paragraph 100 of the Petition, the 1st Respondent avers that the alleged Investigation, Forensic Expert and other Reports and Spread Sheets referred to in the Petition are all concocted, procured and fabricated to advance their claims in this Petition and mislead the Honourable Court.
100. Further and in addition to the above, the 1st Respondent avers and shall at trial contend that the alleged incorporation of the Investigation, Forensic Expert and other Reports and Spread Sheets referred to in the Petition but not made available prior to this Reply to the Petition as part of the Petition to enable the 1st Respondent respond appropriately to same is an attempt to spring a surprise on the 1st Respondent and thereby deprive the 1st Respondent of an opportunity to respond to same. The 1st Respondent shall at trial thereby urge the Honourable Court to discountenance all reference made to the non-existent Reports.
101. The 1st Respondent shall at the trial of this Petition rely on all relevant documents, judgments, court processes, polling documents and all other relevant documents used for the conduct of the election as referred to in this Reply, including but not limited to:
     (i) Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E used at the election.
     (ii) The Voters Register used for the election.
     (iii) All the Forms used for the election.
     (iv) List of Party Agents
     (v) BVAS Report on accreditation.
     (vi) Report of the ICT Department of the pt Respondent,
     (vii) ECl lA and ECl lC in respect of the 3rd Respondent’s nomination.
     (viii) 3rd Respondent’s Letter of Withdrawal dated 6th July 2022
     (ix) 4th Respondent’s Letter dated 10th July 2022 notifying the 1st Respondent of the 3rd Respondent’s withdrawal as
     (x)
     (xi)
     (xii)
     (xiii)
     (xiv) candidate for Borno Central Senatorial District election. CTC Judgment in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 CloudTrail of the Amazon Web Services of the e­ transmission application
     The Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022 Manual for Election Officials, 2023
     All other relevant documents as may be necessary for the purpose of defending the Petition.
102. Contrary to prayers of the Petitioners contained in paragraph 102 of the Petition, the 1si Respondent contends as follows:
     (i) The Petition is frivolous and ought to be dismissed.
     (ii) The 2nd and 3rd Respondents with the information available to the 1st Respondent were at the time of the election qualified to contest same.
     (iii) The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and was not marred by any corrupt practices.
     The 2nd Respondent scored the highest number of the lawful votes cast and satisfied the requirements of the Constitution to be rightly declared and returned as the winner of the election.
103. The 1st Respondent denies that the Petitioners are entitled to the Prayers sought in Paragraphs 102(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Petition and shall therefore urge the Honourable Court to dismiss the Petition as same is a misadventure, abusive of the court process, speculative, vague and consist largely of falsehood and unfounded allegations.

Dated the 9th day of April 2023

Signed:

A.B Mahmoud, OON, SAN, FC/Arb
Dr. ‘Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, FCIArb
Miannaya Essien, SAN, CJArb
Abdullahi Aliyu, SAN,
Sir. Steve Adehi, SAN FCIArb (UK)
Tanimu lnuwa, SAN
Alhassan Akeje Umar, SAN
Abdulaziz Sani, SAN
Sulayman 0/awale Ibrahim, SAN.
Garba Hassan, Esq.
Nasara H. Auta, Esq.
Adebowale Kamoru, Esq.
Aminu Sadauki, MC/Arb Esq.
Patricia Obi, Esq.
Wendy Kuku, Esq.
Musa Attah, Esq.
Elohozino Ulebe, Esq.,
Zakari Enesi Abass, Esq.
Oseni Sefiullahi, Esq.,
Chukwudi Enebeli, Esq, MCIArb.
Barakah Ali Esq.
Emmanuel Ayande Osayomi, Esq.,
Peter Onuh, Esq.
Abubakar Sadiq Idriss, Esq.,