In an interview on Tuesday, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Robert Clarke, spoke on the chances of the Labour Party and its Presidential candidate for the 2023 general election, Peter Obi, of outsing President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, at the election tribunal.
Recall that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Tinubu the winner of the 2023 presidential election. The announcement was challenged by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar and Obi of the LP.
The duo have since approached the court to claim there were irregularities during the polls and also made accusations against INEC and the ruling Al Progressives Congress (APC).
Speaking with Arise TV yesterday, Clarke said it would be hard for the LP to prove that there were election malpractices in Lagos State during the Presidential election. 
The elder statesman said though Obi and his team have filed an election petition against the APC candidate, he may not reclaim his allegedly stolen mandate.
Clarke’s words read: “Let me be honest with you, let’s take for instance, the Obi, Labour Party. They had filed an election petition based on one- Bola Tinubu is not eligible to be voted for, two and even if he is eligible to be voted for, he did not get the two-thirds in Abuja, and even if he got it, the election was marred with gangsterism and different things. Those are the three elements that the Labour Party has brought forward to an election petition. Now let me draw from the pool of my own experience.
“The first one is that he is not eligible because he has been found guilty, but that is a non-starter. The issue has been settled and it is a non-starter. So the Labour Party can never make any headway on that ground. The second ground is that by virtue of the constitution that says to win an election despite and in spite that you have made the greatest number of votes, you cannot be declared elected if you don’t have two-thirds in 36 States and Abuja.
“The question to be considered by the Tribunal is what constitutes two-thirds of the 36 States in Nigeria and Abuja and how do you construct that word ‘and’ do you take 36 states first and you now take Abuja and now say that for you to be elected you must have two-third of 36 States and two-third of the federal capital and that is the view of the Labour Party which I do not agree with. Now, look at the scenario they are saying, If Tinubu had won two-thirds of all the 36 States and failed to win two-thirds of Abuja, then he cannot be elected. Does that make sense? Does that give any good reason for democracy to survive?”.
He added: “Now the Supreme Court now says that look Abuja has been created as one of the 36 States, so it enjoys the status of a state, but the Supreme Court in one or two other cases would also say in determining whether Abuja is a state, you should not grant Abuja any privileges once you declared it as a state. The constitution itself says all votes cast in an election in Nigeria are equal, so how do you now add all these three principles that Abuja cannot have any special status, that all votes cast in Nigeria have equal states, then why do you want to interpret ‘and’ there to mean that even if I had 36 states, two-third and I don’t get Abuja, then I cannot be elected, it doesn’t make sense. Democracy means polarity of the people, for the people and for all the people.”
Giving his opinion, Clarke said “My own view, which I think is a reasonable view, but I am subject to other views from my learned colleagues and the Supreme Court, is that in determining whether Tinubu has made that provision of two-thirds of the states, it must be the 36 states plus Abuja which is 37 states, so if he has made the polarity of two-third votes in all these states added together, then he becomes elected. But as I said, this is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. But I am basing my submission on what the Supreme Court has said on Abuja, what it has said about votes, and what it has said about the equality of votes among the states.”
Clarke said he is entitled to his opinion, which may be rejected, but that even if the Labour Party decides that Tinubu is not qualified by virtue of past precedent, they still have to surmount the principle that the election was marred with many irregularities.
According to him, the law says there is a presumption of regularity attached to whatever INEC does.
“The Evident Act in Nigeria gives INEC that privilege. The Supreme Court is now in a difficult position to look at all the evidence to be brought by the Labour Party regarding my practices.
“Now the notorious place the Labour Party is holding is Lagos. They claim that they were cheated in Lagos, and voters were not allowed to vote. Now when they prove it, they still need to go beyond the proving to show how it has affected the election. So they have an uphill task.
“So my own view from my own experience in election matters, it is an uphill task for them, but you never know. You never know the circumstances of these malpractices or how many votes were not allowed to be cast, so I cannot pitch my tent to say that they would not succeed, but my belief is that they have an uphill task,” he reiterated.
The post Presidential Election Tribunal: Clarke Speaks On Peter Obi, LP’s Chances Of Ousting Tinubu appeared first on Naija News.
