Obi and LP said INEC violated its own regulations when it announced the result despite the fact that at the time of the announcement, the totality of the polling unit results had yet to be fully scanned, uploaded, and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.

Labour Party has stated that its case against victory of Bola Tinubu at the Presidential election Tribunal is water-tight.

The Director-General of the Obi-Datti Presidential Campaign Council, Akin Osuntokun said this during a recent interview.

It would be recalled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the 2023 presidential contest in Nigeria,

Not satisfied with the outcome of the election, the former Governor of Anambra State challenged the results declared by INEC and the declaration of Tinubu as president-elect.

In the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023 filed by his lead counsel, Livy Ozoukwu, the LP and its flagbearer contended that Tinubu “was not duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election.”

The petitioners claimed there was rigging in 11 states, adding that they would demonstrate this in the declaration of results based on the uploaded results.

Obi and LP said INEC violated its own regulations when it announced the result despite the fact that at the time of the announcement, the totality of the polling unit results had yet to be fully scanned, uploaded, and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.

Among other prayers, the petitioners urged the tribunal to “determine that, at the time of the presidential election held on February 25, 2023, the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) were not qualified to contest the election.”

In a chat with Vanguard on Monday, Osuntokun said the evidence before the party is too conspicuous and expressed optimism that the party would reclaim its mandate at the tribunal.

He said: “I don’t see how many petitions, numbering in hundreds, can be evidence for credibility; I see it as a twisted logic. In fact, the reverse should be the case. Are you saying 400 people are accusing somebody of theft? If you have 400 complaints of an election conducted, how can that be evidence of credibility? It is exactly the opposite.

“In any case, we have a watertight petition, the evidence is too conspicuous. That is the kind of confidence that we have.

We have evidence against their servers of the results they announced; I don’t know what anybody can say about that.”