 Tonight, once again on Balot 2023, we take a look at the presidential election as Peter Obie, others, filed petitions to nullify Bola Amir Tinubu's victory. This is Balot 2023. My name is Nyangu Aghaju. The Labour Party, LP and its candidate Peter Obie have formally filed a petition at the election petition tribunal in Abuja, challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu of the all-progressive Congress APC as the winner of the February 25, 2023 presidential election. The petitioners are praying for the tribunal to declare that Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election. They want an order mandating INAG to retrieve the certificate of return issued to the APC candidate and issue a fresh one to Obie. Joining us live to discuss this is Tunji Abdulhamid, a legal practitioner, and will be joined a little bit later on by Charles O'Toole, a political analyst. Tunji, welcome to the program. Thank you very much, good evening. Good. Okay, we've seen what is happening in the political space and what the agitations have been like. Let's take what you feel about what is going on now, the legal proceedings that have kicked off formally by the Labour Party and even by extension by the PDP. I think it's a number being allowed by law when you are not with the sort of election, you have the right to file a petition before the court, and that is what I think that's what they are doing now. So the filing of petition is part of the election process. In other words, when you're not satisfied, you have the right to go to court. I think apart from the Labour Party, I'm sure all parties will fight that process it today or tomorrow. The party today is largely, but if my calculation is right, because the most fight we think is one day to take from the date of the release of the results. So I think as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing new in it, it's normal. And it's expected that there's so many cases being caught in terms of regarding this election because there are so many areas that are not too clear. And the way in which the election was handled or the credibility of the election. So it's not surprising to me that people are in court to challenge it. Okay, first of all, let me congratulate you on a gallant fight in your state, even though you lost. These litigations that people are engaging in, are you also doing it in your state or you're satisfied with what happened in Quarra State? Probably may happen because if we go by a sex way, we would just want peace to life. I'm telling you, the last election, the Senate and the Labour Party, they are already in court because they are all married, incredible parts. In other words, there is no credibility in that in the election. There are no fair elections. In fact, but what is the last government election? It's about manipulation, it's about money, it's about intimidation, it's about threats. Imagine where the traditional law became unofficial agents of a party because of the threat that they are losing area, they are going to be removed. So that's what we see there. So the law of manipulation, the law of intimidation, the law of threats, the law of, I don't even know the adjective to qualify it again. But a certain concern is, the election is not about rooming the election. It's about the process. If the process is free and fair, nobody will say, you can see in New York City probably because the APC candidate believed that it was free and fair and he was beating fair and square. He has to regulate the other party and the one candidate in that state. So if you have a free and fair election and people see it to be free, when you say free and fair election, it's not about what the commission or those in charge say it's fair. Fairness must be seen. Not a little, when you say justice, it's not allowed to be done. It must have been seen to have been done. So if we don't see the fairness, we don't see the justice, that's not where you want to be. So I didn't expect anything like this in this matter. So many people will be in court. And I think this will be the highest election where people will be challenged in court. But your party at the national level seems to be a little bit quiet. The other day we heard that the petition that was before the court about the inspection of materials has been removed, even though the explanation was given, that it is because INEC has already given unfettered access to the materials that need to be looked into. But we don't seem to see the kind of energy with which this process was started immediately after the election. Is there anything that we need to know from the PDP? You are in there already. They must fight. They are going to fight. You are in there already. Let the petition is all filed in the open. It's been done inside the room. They are preparing a document and they are cooking. It's not something you just rush and rush and rush and just put before the court. Like I said earlier, I'm very sure they must have a fight by now. I think if my calculation is correct, probably tomorrow will be the last day or today. I'm not so sure. So then they might have a fight. Maybe it's not in the public domain. So as far as I'm concerned, the issue of my party being silent is not correct. They are working under the petition. The filing of the petition is not done in the public. It's not on the pages of this paper. And so then people are working. They are doing their best to censure that loop. Things are done the way it's been done. And then that nothing is left untouched. You see, regarding the application that was withdrawn, it's normal when I'm asking for a particular position and that position has been taken. Do I have to pursue it again? No. They are asking that they want to be part of the configuration. They want to witness it. And before that application is filed for the court. It's already been done. So the right thing is to withdraw the application from the court, which is what they did. People are mistaken to say PDPDPS would run their petition against the election. No, they have not even filed. They would run it. OK, some people have felt that what the Labor Party is asking for, to nullify the election or to withdraw the certificate of return from the president-elect right now, is a really tall order. And they are saying that it's an effort in futility. As a legal practitioner yourself, do you think cases like these, if they have some merit, can overturn what has been done right now that we have a president-elect already? Yes, if they have some merit and we have judiciary that can stand on its own, definitely they can overturn it. So there's nothing new in overturning the decision of the court of an electoral body. So if you have cases presented before the court and that case is as merit before the court and they are able to prove it and they are able to accept it, they can be overturned. And that's what they are asking for. So they are asking for, when you are challenging, election petitions are what we call election results or election of a particular candidate. What we are asking for is either to for a rerun or for you to be declared or for them to come to it. So it's not as of any other. It's not much to ask for. So if the matter has merit and we have people or judiciary that will stand on its own, that will stand on the merit of a case that will not be by us, then there's not impossible in it. So the problem for those who are saying is it taller than they'd be thinking or looking at not having confidence that the judiciary will be able to stand and say election of a particular candidate or presidential-elect is overturned in this country. Maybe probably that's why they are worried. But it should not be the cause to worry because judiciary, the court is there to do justice and justice is not about whether somebody is a president or is not a president. You must do it in respect of who the person is involved that is involved. So as far as I'm concerned, I believe that the case, if the court believes that it has merit or is satisfied that it has merit in the case, then it will give the right decision, which among all that is really what the parties asking for. If they're asking for cancellation and if they deserve it, the court will give them. If they're asking for it on, if they deserve it, the court will give them. If they're asking for disqualification of the candidate, if they deserve it, the court will give them them. So for me, I know this election, but that is the presidential election. There's a lot of issue in it, that legal issue that can be challenged. You know, the matter is already in court. So I don't want to be talking about the merit of the case. I know the issue of whether Abuja or not is a part of the, of the 36th is a good ground. It's a good ground to determine whether or not it can be ruled did not win Abuja, can be declared winner of an election. That would be one of the issues that I'll be talking about. Whether or not, non-transparency, no compliance with the INEC regulation, regarding the transmission of the results, whether that's not an emergency that can be challenged is also there. So if you have irregularity, if you have bridges of electoral art or constitution or whatever are there, you can go to court and I've not seen the petition filed by the Liberal Party and OB, but I've heard that one of the issues in that petition has to do with the criminal allegation of criminal crime against the president-elect. So even though that is also proven and the court has accepted, it's a ground to nullify the election. So as far as I'm concerned, you don't do anything untoward, it's not matching and I don't expect the court to do otherwise where the court believe that the party before it has invented a very good piece and it's out to get what it's asking for. Okay, we'll come back to interrogate the credibility of the court and the role of the people in all days. But now we're being joined by Charles O'Too, who is a political analyst as well. Charles, welcome to the program. Charles, can you hear me? Yeah, you. Okay, good evening. Good evening and welcome to Balot 2023. Thank you, Wangu, how are you? I'm fine. Okay, right now, yeah. We've seen where the trajectory is headed. We've seen where all this is headed, the litigations in the courts. We've seen what the Liberal Party is asking for right now, notification of the election or to declare the candidate of the Liberal Party, the winner, or at least to remove the president-elect because he did not win legally all the votes that they are claiming that he won. I'd just like to know how you feel about how this drama is playing out. Thank you, Mr. Wangu, thank you to my co-guests there. I listened to him in parts. The fact remains that what is before the election petition tribunal, presidential election petition tribunal is a test, a moral test on every facet of Nigeria. First of all, from beginning from my neck to the judiciary, particularly the apex court in the land. Why do I say is a test? If you look at the five prayers made by Peter Obe, which time may not permit me to reveal all of them, but you've summed it, asking for a declaration that says the person declared did not meet up with the 25% requirement across the manifestors, including the FCT, that he shouldn't be declared the winner of the election and the election should be avoided and himself declared winner. These are not unexpected. Why it is sounding the way it sounded? Why people are afraid? Because of the nature of the judiciary we have. The same judiciary, like a friend was telling me a few days ago, he is doing an election petition tribunal. He said, look, what you are going to see in the court in the coming days will be impressive. Why? Because people have said, do a manner of things, throw in the mud, throw in everything and they tell you go to court. If you, look, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead, we can hear you. Okay, so if you are now before the court as majority of the candidates in the election are, it goes without saying that the court should be able to look at the matters before it and do justice. When I say justice, the court should be bold and ferocious enough to say, look, we've looked at the players before us and the actual things we can do, we can grant as it were. Why? Because it has happened in our Nepal and African country here in Kenya, we saw what played out. The court stood his ground and they said, look, we cannot use the influence of the outgoing president to void an election because it didn't, because of influence. So we expect that the court should be able to take, because if like they have always said, literally they say, if you, if somebody steals your good and says, you should go to court, just know that his father is the presiding judge in the court. So the ball is now on the court of the APS court in the land to prove that it can look at the content of the various contents of the electoral act because Mr. Wangu before now, what we normally hear will be, I've witnessed and covered election petitions tribunals as a journalist and the reporter. In 2011, in 2015, even in 2019, what we normally hear before the signing of the electoral act is that the card reader is not contained in the electoral act, that was the, that was the same song of the issue. That's why on that technical grounds, many election petitions tribunals will say, oh, you cannot expect, you can nothing can come because even if you bring in the issue of the card reader, it is not stated in the electoral act. Now, the essence of the electoral act amendments will be a sham and the wastage of state resources, a wastage of our national resources and funds, including the time of the 365 members of the Federal House of Representatives and 109 senators who sat down, sought for amendments and brought this law to bear before the president put his accent. So now it has become a law. We are no longer talking about the validity of otherwise of the electoral act. It is now contained that this are the procedures. So all that I like to do to avoid this chaos we are plunging to even across the 30 states we are election held now is to follow its own rules, to follow its own guidelines. So in a scenario where the electoral empire is unable to follow to its own specified guidelines for electing and declaring somebody a winner in an election, I mean, the court becomes the last hope of the common man and that is where Peter Obey and other candidates like we are made to understand two other political parties have appeared before. So for me, Peter Obey is not unknown for creating history in our Nigerian judiciary. He is rather known for that. You know the way he came into Anambra after the 2003 election in Anambra? He came after the election in 2007. People did not believe it was possible for anything for the judiciary to look at the facts. But the judiciary did look at the facts and he was not only declared a winner, he also went back to the same court to interpret his tenor as governor. And he said the precedence of what to post a good election in Nigeria. So if that kind of, or that precedence can be set at the state level, the national judiciary should not look at what the normalists say. They will say, oh, you consider national security, you consider, we have put in over 350 billion era to regularize the electoral process by including the use of bevers and other technologies in this election. So you ask for 350 billion era and 350 billion era was given to you to the least couple. And you came up with a shambolic result and exercise that is now tearing the national apart, tearing the state apart. If the process was fair, quickly and credible, Mr. Wambu, by now Nigeria should have been congratulating the winner. Not only that, Nigeria should have been hopeful that this nation has been set on the path of a positive trajectory for electoral reforms. Nigeria's world tearing the international passports, as you've seen, born in the permanent for task card. I just finished a call before I joined this program. It was a long call. Me trying to convince a young lady who will say, look, if I don't succeed in burning my PVC, which may be extreme, it is just for identification purposes. If you sample the opinion of 100 Nigerian youths over 85% stand on the same ground. So is it about you being declared? Is it about you saying you've won the election? Have you won the confidence of the people? There are components that goes with this election. The elections are situate. The first component is winning the confidence. That is what is called the moral authority to govern. If it is lacking in a democracy, people will feel you are not legitimately qualified to rule over them. And that is going to cascade to all the decisions and policies actions you will take as it were, even the cost of governance. So that is why it is a difficult moment for the nation. It is a tempting moment for Nigeria as it were. But it's also a time for the judiciary to stand this ground to say, look, we may have been getting it wrong in all of this for now. We may have been telling people, look, this card reader is not captured in the electoral act. Now is a time that we have an electoral act signed and centered to, which included transmission, electronic transmission of results. No matter how they paint it, Mr. Wangul, 80% of the new voters who came into the election on the 25th of February to vote. For the first time in history, as we were met to, as samples of opinions proved, this so because of the trust and the confidence that they had in the INEC that the electoral process has been strengthened to the point that if you vote, you don't need to bother yourself with manual collation. You don't need to bother yourself about that at the point you voted, it is, we campaigned to, we followed politicians to cover their campaigns across the states, across the third states and the FCT. We also know what the, what built the confidence of the people around the electoral process. It was nothing more than the fact that people believed that once you cast your ballot at the polling booth, it is going to be transmitted immediately and directly, electronically to the central server in INEC. Mr. Wangul, we saw that work in a kitty. We approved, we applauded it. We saw it work in a number against AB money back. We have proved that applauded it. We also saw that work perfectly in a true state. We have proved that applauded it. And then people began to say, oh, it's like this INEC has eventually got it right. So let us use this natural election to prove that we are not, we are, we are not a docile. We are not just desire your youths. Who don't understand, who always cry and then want to take the JAPA, JAPA syndrome and then look for what is better outside. We want to be participants in the process. And this energize the young people to move out in their numbers to get their privileges. As we speak, if you check the number of new entrants who voted on the 25th, who couldn't even come back to vote on the March 18th, you will know that the electoral process is losing its value, its test, its credibility already. So the best thing for the judiciary to do is to look at the law, not at what it always will say, consideration for national security, consideration for the standard. You will have to watch security crisis predictably if you allow the law to be misinterpreted because of the fear of the consequences. The judiciary actually made both decisions. We wasted 350 billion on account of it in the last election. I mean, the nation should be able to say, okay, even if it is for the purposes of, the people is already there, getting the ballot, getting things ready to go back to their post, let the people's confidence and will triumph. That is all that Nigeria requires and all these agitations, all this noise you hear all over the place, all this lack of confidence and trust, mistrust in governance, we will be a team of the past and Nigeria can begin a rebuilding process from there. So the onus is on the judiciary, the ball is on its court and it is better, it determines what is before it, judiciously and expeditiously without any form of bias. We're looking at the last elections and what impact it will have in future elections and what the people feel about it. We've just heard that, or we know that the Labour Party and some other parties have gone to court to try to interpret some of the things that need interpretation and to challenge some of the things that happened during the election. One of such things is that the Labour Party is asking for the nullification of the entire process or at least the removal of the president-elect because he did not win legally, that's what they're arguing and so many other things surrounding the elections and we still have Twinji Abdulhamid here in the House with us, he's a legal practitioner and Charles O2 is a political analyst. We'll come to you now, Twinji, to start to talk about some of the few things that we have thrown up in the course of this discussion. First of all, we talked, or Charles talked about beavers and how it raised the confidence level of the people leading up to the election of the 25th of February and that of the governorship and state House of Assembly. But in these beavers, I'm asking you as a legal practitioner now, in these beavers, in this electoral act which included beavers because he kept saying that in the other election circles, the argument was that whatever technology was introduced into the election was not captured in the electoral act. Now beavers was captured and people, the level of confidence rose so high and a lot of people went to get their PVCs and they wanted to vote and they actually went to the field to vote. But the other argument, even before it goes to court or before it went to court is that beavers, even though it was captured in the electoral act, also had a little place that gave INEC the power to choose how to transmit these results, not necessarily through the beavers. And now if you have read through the electoral act, help us to understand how on the one hand, this same law will say that this is a must, transmitting the results through the beavers and then on the other hand, it will say you have the power to choose how to transmit the results to the INEC portal or whatever you want to use to gather the results before the announcements. Now what will come before the other or how are we to understand when we are arguing what we should be saying that this is what the law holds and we stand by it because that same law was speaking through two sides of the mouth as it were. So help us to understand that please, Tungi. I think the law is not speaking with two times the size of its mouth. I have always maintained and one of those who believed that, look, our law is not the problem. It's the people who are meant to implement the law that are the problems. No, when the electoral aspect was made, I was one of those who raised that issue that at that time, most of us in Nigeria would just slow the events and we just, it had been signed, at least it had been signed, let's just try it first. This and that, no, I raised that issue at that time. They want to ensure that INEC gets its independence and in that electoral act, so many of the provisions allow INEC to determine mode of doing certain things. It gave them that discretion. So it is that discretion that I'm using now because the INEC has discretion to tell me how this law will be transmitted. There's nothing in the law would compare them to do it electronically. They have, it's at the time by the commission. So with me, it's a discretion question. But the point is that where the electoral are, you know, when you talk about election, as far as I'm concerned, the three basic legal framework for election in Nigeria, constitution, the electorate and the INEC manual or what they call regulation. So if you, and that's what I'm concerned, so those three legal framework must be abide by which the INEC must go in line with those law. The electoral act, yes, the electoral act gave them the discretion to determine how to transmit the results. That the INEC on its own before the election came out with regulation, particularly regulation 38, whereby they said all results will be transmitted or to IRS. And that was the procedure. So the INEC is banned by that regulation. The people who want to be received or they will say regulation is not part of our law. It's to bring to the side that regulation is part of the law because that regulation was made first one to the position of the constitution and the electoral act. Because electoral act and constitution gave INEC the power to determine how election is to be conducted, including all processes, including making regulations. They gave them the power. The electoral act, the constitution gave INEC the power to make the regulation, which means that regulation is what is called subsidiary legislation. So in law, we have what we call primary legislation and secondary legislation. Primary legislation at this stage is the electoral act and the constitution. The secondary legislation at this point is the regulation. And it sometimes goes on in the law, which INEC must be abide by. Then what INEC wants to, because my question at that time when the law was passed was at least an opportunity for INEC to do Magumago whatever they want to do. That was what I raised at that time that this discretion has to determine but what can't we make it so straight that must be abide. They say it will end up their operation in case there's a failure of technology. So I said, look, that discretion is an avenue for anyone who wants to do what they call, I don't know, Magumago. He wants to do a Joro. You know that kind of thing. He wants to manoeuvre or manipulate. That's an opportunity for them to, and that's what we're seeing now today. You can see, I don't know, I'm not an active person, but I don't know why a server that is meant to receive three results, presidential election, the electoral election, and what's it called, and the out-of-prime elections will be able to, is able to receive the snitch, is able to receive the out-of-prime, is able to receive the presidential election results. How? Was it programmed in that manner? Because if it's not programmed in that manner, it means you will accept presidential, you will accept snitch, you will get snitch, you will get presidential, but it's not judging any of the senators, it's judging that of the presidential. It's, as far as I'm concerned, it's on the brakes. As far as I'm concerned, it's a manoeuvring. So I would not blame any law. It's not about the law, it's about the people who are meant to implement the law. They implement the law in a way that people with their own personal interests, is the election was not in this way that would not make the election to be transparent, because they are aware that if that is what it is, it's transmitted to other people. People will be able to follow, and they won't be able to do any manipulation again. That was our point of success, when people have that confidence that we are not moving to where we expect that we have to be. And that was what so many people are interested in participating. I'll tell you, the last, the last election, the number of people came out for the false, it's a confirmation that people are not satisfied, they don't refer back to their own thinking that our votes don't count. That was the confirmation, that's what I'm concerned. Look at reverse it, that used to come out to the two million votes, the total votes in reverse is now up to 500,000, correct? Total votes from reverse in this government election is now up to 500,000 votes, or a bit above 500. So as far as I'm concerned, this election has drawn us back to so many years. Not that we are back to 80s, not we have gained the vote when the electorate came up and the two elections that have been aired, and that we said that we have a positive improvement, but that improvement, everything has gone. People no longer have confidence in anything, I don't ask, if you have, it's your own. I don't have confidence in anything. You can see what happened yesterday, the election, what's it called? The officer that was to declare results made all effort to ensure that look, the candidate wants to declare, who will declare? They directed him to all areas of law. The law, if you have confidence in each race, the law gave the idea, session 51, so they had the power to review all the issue rates, what they do, it's a no to also declare. Well, how can you, the candidate was needed, now went to, they moved all the votes so that they would not be able to go back to behind. You can see almost all the states, we have so many, I tell you, I would not see any state, I would not be any case against this election. So many, all the cases which are left in court, the majority of them, at least 90% or 80% of which are left in court. But there is no transparency, there is no accountability, the people did not see it as fair and fair, it was catarised by violence, drug greed, intimidation, you can see what happened in legal states. Clearly some people came up openly to tell some people don't come and vote, they are not voting for the particular candidate. If there is democracy, democracy by choice, you have to come and vote. I am one of those who believe that, which of that, that in legal states, governments are only using that election. It was using that election, because the people election is different from this election, that's the fifth election, it was this influence, not the candidates in legal states, no, not the people in legal states. And the people in this election, as a whole are one, they're because of the fear that some people are telling to intimidation, attack and violence, which is what we see as a report that we've got in so many other, so many states, are the same, violence, threats, intimidation, and that's what we see. So as far as I'm concerned, this particular election that was conducted by this island, I think I am embarrassed, I am disappointed, in fact, I am feeling that we have wasted all our money because we spend a lot of money to bring this out. You are told, people's island is a game changer, that's what we are hearing, game changer. Now it's game, game, game otherwise, but I don't see anything change. They've not changed anything, they buy before they have, but the people are pandering, and you know, another point is that, even before that election, people that are concerned, that island, it wants to get some people out of the island, and they might say, no, we will never do that, we will never do that. What they do at the end of the day, and they use it where they feel comfortable, where they're not comfortable, they get to say, it's not possible. And what I know from electoral art, but my own knowledge, is that where the electoral, where PIFI is not used to attend it, that election cannot hold, and that's a result in that, in that, in those areas, cannot hold. The idea of holding it, they are holding it, and they have the power to reject or cancel any election that was not passed through the beef as a procedure. By that new law, manual accreditation is no longer available. They were sitting with us. Okay. We did that in this election. So it was unfortunate. So people are saying that they don't want the INFP to comply with all the downloss. In other, the regulations, the electoral arts, the constitution, they decide to get it all done, and do the election in their own way, the way they like it, where they have the interest. So you come down and drink some water. All right. I am going to go away. Thank you. Let me come to you Charles. Let me come to you Charles. A lot of people have been, we understand that, but what has been done has been done, but we still have a future ahead of us. And there are a lot of things that we can still change. Now, the fear is that the judiciary may not have the capacity or the will to do what is right. Because we've seen instances of things that have happened that we did not understand. There was a lot of abracadabra inside it. We have a governor in Emo state. We still don't understand what happened there before he became governor. We have a Senate president who returned to the Senate. We don't understand which part of the electoral act gave him the past to return and contest and even win. And we also have someone from a governor in a acquire bomb state that came back and contested and won. And he's now a senator elect. And we still do not understand. Maybe their cases were credible enough and they won the cases and they went back there, but we just don't understand what happened. Now, the thing is, if we have lost some level of confidence in the judiciary, what can we do to make sure that this judiciary, that if we leave things to them, may do what we think is not good enough? What can we do to make sure we keep them on their toes? How can we get involved in this process, in this legal process, as peacefully as possible, but as exerting as possible, as not intimidating as possible, but to make them know that we are watching and watching really good? What can we do as a people? Thank you very much, Mr. Wangu. First of all, I must commend but it's not 2G that he spoke passionately and that he spoke the minds of many Nigerians. Even as a lawyer, because some people are shifting grounds on ethnic convenience and all of that. I'm proud of him and I'm proud he and some of us standing by the fact that the law should not be proud of it. Now, to your question, 2G, before I answer your question, 2G mentioned the cardinal state. Yes, those ones are before the media. In a point of state where I come from, where I monitor the election, a sitting governor walked into the INEC office at my own local government office, but not local government area. In the dead of the night, and all he could do was simple. He said, look, he said, look. Go ahead, go ahead, we can hear you. Okay, he said, we saw what was playing out. We said, look, what should a government ordinarily be doing in this kind of environment? They came, they switched off all the lights. So the INEC woman was shouting, saying, look, this is not how collision is done. Stop, you put your stop. Collations that were supposed to be done at the world collision level was brought to the point of a collision at the local government level. And they shared the way every other party's agents, they shared the way everybody that was not a member of the party, of the ruling APC. And they manipulated all the figures in some places, like in pulling in the 003, I can't even put up a technical one, 003. I can't even put up a technical one. The number of voters captured in beavers was about 185. The number of votes declared for the APC in that area through manipulation was 590. These are, these are, these are- In the days of beavers. The beavers was utterly bypassed in most parts of, in fact, more than 60, 70% of the pulling units or at the collision point. So you now look at a place, you say your opponent is leading you here, you now do some subtractions and addictions, some in most cases, overriding and getting across over, much over the number of, much more than the number of registered voters in that particular unit, pulling unit. And this was what happened across the 171 electoral votes across the 2,495 pulling units in a boy state. And today somebody's declared a winner, somebody is claiming victory and the people are watching, you see, like Wangu, they have said it all in the various social media platforms, where they say, look, the African proverb is simple. You can steal the community drum successfully. The problem is where to beat it. You beat it in your house, they never say as a drummer, say, oh, that is a drum he stole from our playground. You beat it in the public, they say, he stole that, our cell drum. That is what is happening to those who are stolen. It's a cross body, it's all over the state and it's a shame. I'm ashamed that in an era where we talked case would be done badly because it is no longer the era. You know, if it was in 2003, there was no technology. The heist called election would have gone unnoticed, but you saw the videos, you saw people saying there were intimidated, intimidated, both buying was ongoing in almost all the places. Now, the issues that are germane before the court is not only to determine whether this case is before it can stand or not. The main issue before the court or the court in Nigeria is whether they would want to set a precedent that this electron my visitors will no longer stand as it were, that when somebody tells you, go to court if you like. Like it's not being able to come to social media to make jest of go to court. They say, they collect your wife, they say, we can go to court and challenge it. Now, the judiciary has become a mockery of its highly revered and esteemed image and it should use this period. It should use these petitions before it in the next 180 days before July, August, to place the urgent table. Let us not say, oh, oh, with wasted money, if we cancel elections, it's going to cost us more money. No, let it cost us and let us get the right people and let us get the mass issue to prevail. Look at the few cases in the South, it's like, go and dive there for instance, where it was glaring that Labour Party candidates were leading. Look at how they are toying with the results that someone grew. My brother, Tungida, because of what? They are still trying to tell the people that they can go to court because they don't want the youths who pour their energy into the election to have even what they call a low-hanging fruit. Because that lowest-hanging fruit will be that, okay, we can begin a building of the confidence of the process with these two states, with these individuals in a point, for instance, you cannot count a local government that the governor of the state did not physically visit within a point South, at least. Practically, the five local governments, in the dead of the night, moving from one location to the other, track policemen and soldiers on uniform where chasing people away, really, soldiers and police who escorted ballot materials and INEC officials, including youth commembers to the local government. Chase them out of the people, not local government. At 9.30 p.m. on Saturday, shooting sporadically, the woman was, the ego was locked inside the room, too much to talk about, so much, just so much. And this is the heist, some people want to believe, people who were elected to that place, a man should be congratulated. Come on, the word, his excellency, should be excellent indeed, please. And the judiciary shouldn't make a further mockery of this because all of this are happening and they are telling you to go to court because they just believe they can buy over the judges. So if I were a judge, I would ask myself, if my aunt, my cousin, my relative, my father, my mother is a judge, I would ask myself the simple question, what does the law, mommy or daddy, what does the law specify? Can we now begin to retrieve this system, make this system strengthened? So people who know that there will be consequences for their actions, in one of the northern states, I think it's in Bouchie state or so, you watched a police, two policemen have been to induce voters and intimidate voters. I have been a politician. It was a nice song. I worked and I worked bitterly for all that happened across the system of the creation. It was like, we went back, Tony Woodard was saying, we went back to the, we went back to the primitive age, the primitive age of 1953, that's what we went back to. Because you cannot, you did not see anywhere in previous elections that have had at least up to four, five, six elections in this country, where people were even threatened not to come out and cast their ballots. So what has happened is exactly what my friend Tungi has solved up, people have required to their shell to say, look, we have lost confidence in the system, we've lost confidence in Nigeria. And it is all, we are all going to suffer for it. The generation has come born, it really wants to come out going to suffer for it. So for me, the judiciary must assert its authority using this matter. That's my final submission. Yeah, thank you very much. Of course, Lina, just a moment, Tungi. I just like you guys to wrap up, giving us final words, because no matter how disheartening this might be, some of us don't have another passport. We have only Nigeria and would still keep hoping. So let's take a final word to Nigerians so that we don't end on a, this kind of note, like there is no hope, there is still hope. So talk to Nigerians, both of you, and let me start with you, Tungi, as briefly as possible. People hoping or let's forget the past, is what has been taken, is what we are going to do today. Let's call it a spade. Let's call it a spade. But the wrong thing is don't let's call it a spade. I know, but let's call it a spade. Let's not call it a spade. We will see people call people, of course people names now. We will see them calling for the Constellation. We will see them calling them for, let's let there be truth. That will just politics. You see, democracy is about, you can't force yourself to serve people. You are coming to government to serve, and you are forcing yourself, what do you want to achieve? Unfortunately, our law did not give anybody to the high leg when it comes to courts. The body is on the petitioner. And unfortunately, again, the weapon that will be used against in that election is again, you have to get it from the high leg who are fighting. You can see the opportunity aspect of our system. And that's why you will not blame the majority. The system is not the way it should be. You want to fight high leg. You are collecting people from the high leg. You can see what they did. When PDP and the Labour Party asked for inspection of the material, you can see the way they proceeded them. And they were not able to check. How do you prove your case? And the bodies on the high leg is on the head of the high leg. That's an opportunity aspect of it. So I think we need to change our law to ensure that, to say that look, when you are high leg, most established that it conducted a free and fair election and that transparent. People should not, like you said, we should all continue to participate. We should see the country as our own. Government is part of everybody's business. It's not for politicians alone. It's for all of us. And we must see it in that way. Until we all put our head into it or our eyes into it, we can't see any change. And if we continue to behave this way, I'll tell you there won't be any good results. Thank you. Thank you very much. Charles, from you, 30 seconds if you may. Let's just wrap it up with you. I just end with this quote. Benny Sanders of the United States of America made this quote. He said, what politics is about is whether we protect the needs of millions of people in this country who are hurting. I believe Benny's was talking to Nigeria directly. Joe Biden supporting that quote again, said, if you do politics the right way, I believe you can actually make people's lives better. And integrity, I repeat, integrity is the minimum answer to get into the game. Where is the moral conscience of the people who perpetrated this act? And that's why I joined my works with what Tungi has said. We should not sweep what has happened and just say, oh, let bygones be bygones. They are politics. No, these are criminal offenses that has been prescribed. What Biden is a criminal offense that has been prescribed, in the Electoral Act, signed into law. It should come into effect. So the judiciary should not allow anyone intimidated to into taking it very casually that look, we are looking at the national interest of national security. And therefore we cannot do justice or what is right and fair before us. So it shouldn't be that way. I also encourage Nigerians not to lose hope in the system. Personally, I lost hope after Saturday, but I have begun to rebuild my own confidence back because we don't have any other country we call our own. So we believe that one day we will get this right. But before then, it is the strengthening of the institutions with the judiciary is at the fork room that can help us strengthen those institutions. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Tungi, Abdulhamid, legal practitioner and Charles are two political analysts. Thank you gentlemen for coming on the program today. Thank you for having me. Thank you very much. We'll put the right people in the system. We'll get it right. We'll get it right. Okay, like we've said, Let's put the right people in the system. Like we've said, everybody get involved and being involved is getting interested in what is happening. There are litigations. There are protests here and there. There are petitions here and there. Just stay on the legal lane and make sure that you see everything that is going on. Just cultivate that interest so that everybody will know that we are watching. It is our Nigeria and we want it to be peaceful. We want it to be safe and we want it to prosper. My name is Nyam Gul Aghaji. From the entire family of plus politics and the ballot, I say goodnight and let's do it again tomorrow. Bye for now.