ABUJA/Nigeria: In a bid to challenge the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court in the last presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has cited the “Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation” and alleged bias in the tribunal’s judgment. Atiku, through his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, submitted a Notice of Appeal dated September 18, arguing that the tribunal’s failure to consider the doctrine constitutes sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to set aside the lower court’s decision.
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, first developed in English law, serves as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to safeguard procedural or substantive interests when a public authority deviates from a representation made to an individual. In the Nigerian context, it obligates public authorities to adhere to their stated positions or sustained practices when exercising their powers concerning the public.
Atiku specifically pointed to the failure of the tribunal to nullify the presidential election held on February 25, 2023, based on noncompliance with the Electoral Act 2022. He argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted the election in grave misrepresentation of its guidelines and regulations, contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, citing the “doctrine of legitimate expectation.”
The former Vice President emphasized that INEC publicly assured candidates and political parties that polling unit results would be electronically transmitted, as mandated by the Electoral Act 2022. However, there was no evidence presented to the tribunal indicating that INEC had altered its guidelines to remove the requirement for electronic transmission, according to Atiku.
He contended that INEC’s failure to fulfill these representations amounted to gross misrepresentation, making the election oppressive, unfair, and in violation of the Electoral Act 2022 and constitutional principles. Atiku argued that INEC, as a public institution, should be held accountable for breaching its own regulations and creating legitimate expectations.
Furthermore, the appellants accused the tribunal of bias, citing disparaging language used in its judgment as evidence of prejudice against them. They argued that the court’s choice of words demonstrated contempt and disdain, violating their right to a fair hearing.
The five-member tribunal panel had previously upheld the declaration of the winner of the February 25 presidential election, Bola Tinubu, ruling that the petitioners, including Atiku, failed to substantiate their allegations of irregularities, corrupt practices, and non-compliance with electoral procedures.
Dissatisfied with the lower tribunal’s decision, Atiku has taken his case to the Supreme Court, seeking the reversal of the tribunal’s ruling and the declaration of himself as the rightful winner of the election. Atiku alleges that he actually won the majority of lawful votes cast but that the electoral process was manipulated in favor of Tinubu.
