Lawyers’ group asks PDP to boycott supplementary polls | Nairalaw

A group called the Coalition of Lawyers for Good Governance has
asked the Peoples Democratic Party to boycott Saturday’s
supplementary elections.

It also praised the PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar,
for challenging the outcome of the February 23 presidential
election in the court.

The Independent National Electoral Commission has slated March 9
for supplementary elections in places where the
presidential/National Assembly elections did not take place and
where returns could not be made.

It said the elections would be conducted alongside the
governorship, state Houses of Assembly and the Federal Capital
Territory Area council elections on Saturday.

But in a statement, the CLGG advised the PDP to boycott the
supplementary polls.

The Lagos-based group’s coordinator, Mr Joe Nwokedi, said the
presidential election raised some questions, as there were
irregularities in the figures announced by the Returning Officers
of INEC.

He said, among other issues, there was “blatant” disregard for
INEC’s directive that card readers should be exclusively used
during the election.

He said, “While the directive was adhered to in some parts of
the country, predominantly in southern Nigeria, it was jettisoned
in other parts of Nigeria, especially in the North, where manual
voting was freely allowed, contrary to the directive by INEC.

“There were also various incidences of cancellation of votes by
the INEC Returning Officers without cogent and convincing
explanations given for doing so.

“The issue of militarisation of the voting exercise has also
raised pertinent issues of law, because there was a judgment of
court of competent jurisdiction in 2014, stating that military
should not be used for elections in Nigeria and same judgment has
not been overturned by any court in Nigeria.”

Stating the reason the PDP should boycott the supplementary
elections, Nwokedi said there were places where INEC promised to
conduct supplementary elections before the collation of results and
final announcement of the result.

He said, “But INEC could not wait till the conduct of these
supplementary elections before the final results of the elections
were announced, and eventual declaration of the winner.

“Why was INEC so much in a hurry to declare a winner and issue
Certificate of Return in an election that has not been concluded in
order to properly and legitimately declare the winner of the
election and issue Certificate of Return?”

The lawyer said the supplementary election ought to have been
conducted before the declaration of the winner of the presidential
election.

“This issue should also be addressed by the court,” he said.

He added, “It will be the duty of the court to determine whether
the gross irregularities, violations and deprivations witnessed
during the presidential election are grave enough to warrant the
cancellation of the election.”