From all angles, it seems the four leading presidential candidates of the political parties have come under legal, moral, financial and political scrutiny and this has the propensity to affect the elections.

For instance, disturbed by the humongous election spending of previous years, security agencies have put the candidates on the radar respecting their election spending, which according to the Electoral Act, must not exceed N5 billion per candidate.

The recent redesign of the naira has been directed largely at the politicians, more so when the Central Bank of Nigeria said that N2.73 trillion out of N3.2 trillion in circulation as at September 2022 (which is about 80 per cent) was outside banks’ vault. What this means is that the notes were being hoarded by members of the public.

Clause 91(2-7) of the Electoral Act, 2022, pegs the maximum election expenses by a candidate at a presidential election to exceed N5 billion; governorship N1 billion, the same with senatorial candidate while that of House of Representatives N70 million. State Assembly and chairmanship candidates have a spending limit of N30 million. Councillorship candidate has maximum spending limit of not exceeding N5 million. INEC also said N50 million still remains the maximum amount an individual could donate to a political party or candidate for an election.

Similarly, the negative disposition of one of the candidates and his party chairman over the use of BVAS in the elections, despite its success at the governorship elections Ekiti and Osun states, has been called to question. INEC, though has insisted that there is no going back of BVAS.

Besides, the fight among the followers and supporters of the major candidates, acrimonious engagements, racking up muds against their opponents in a buildup may lead to legal ambushing for the general election which is less than 100 days from now.

The standard bearer of the major opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is under moral and political scrutiny going by the crisis rocking the party as the Group of 5 Governors led by Rivers State governor Nyesom Wike, has insisted that National Chairman, Iyorchia Ayu, must resign.

Recent happenings and actions of Wike have demonstrated that there is no end in sight for the crisis: “Wike invited Obi and Kwankwaso, both of opposition parties to commission projects. He has a game plan which is known only to him.

He told the whole world that he would provide logistics support for Obi to campaign. This is an anti-party statement and action. It has gotten to a state that his action, utterances and affiliation is damaging the party.

He is hobnobbing with the camp of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). He has overreached himself. He is leaving nothing to chance. He is working for the PDP in the State, but no one knows who he will work for during the presidential election.

Recently, he appointed 200,000 vote canvassers to carry out his plans on the field, arming and planning them to win elections for the PDP’s governorship candidate in the state, but the same cannot be said of the presidential candidate.

The failure of PDP to compel Iyorchia Ayu to resign as party chairman on moral grounds to allow a southerner to take over the position is believed to be capitalized upon by Wike to negotiate with the opposition.

Presidential candidate of the APC, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has been challenged by David Hundein, a journalist, who has released documents bordering on alleged perjury and that he would challenge him to the end.

Tinubu is also said to be battling major health challenges, which sources claimed informed his recent “outsourcing of responses” at his recent Chatham House, London address. The party Chairman, Abdullahi Adamu, is said to be very unhappy at the mistakes and gaffes Tinubu makes at party rallies, as he goes offline and refuses to stick to issues.

“We have a major challenge on our hands, but for the fact that LP (Labour Party), is a party on the fringe, it would have profited hugely from it,” said a top PDP chieftain.

He added, however, that “Peter Obi, too, has issues with his certificates. They are referring to the INEC forms he filled and his credentials. They are engaged in a no-holds-barred fight, as the various contending camps are throwing everything in their arsenal.There is a possibility that the court may stop them. And if this happens, the election may face legal ambush. If they are stopped by the court, then there will be a lacuna.”

However, legal practitioners have allayed the fears that the onus is on the accusers to prove that the candidate has committed perjury before the court can stop a candidate.

In an interview, Seyi Sowemimo (SAN), explained that what would have to be determined in the first instance is the guilt of such a candidate.

“I know for somebody like Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, they have been saying that he made a false declaration and all that. But these things are yet to be proven. Until they are proven, and he is found guilty, you cannot say that there is perjury.

“Until that finding of guilt is there, you can even now not say you want to grant an injunction stopping the person from contesting. It is not as straightforward as that. When you say you want to stop a presidential candidate on grounds of perjury, you would have to first prove that that person has perjured, and I do not know if such a charge can be proven.

“But until then, if such a charge is proven, then there would be a conviction and then sentencing. It is, after that, that a candidate can be stopped from contesting. You can be sure that if ever such a trial takes place, there will be an appeal, and we don’t know when such an appeal will be determined,” he said.

Also weighing in, a legal pundit, Dr. Yemi Omodele, who argued that the fact remains that parties brought before the court ordinarily would have to be given a fair hearing.

To him, in a situation whereby a particular candidate is alleged to have involved himself in what is called perjury, the allegation is a different thing, and to prove it is another story entirely.

Dr. Omodele said: “So, for somebody to have been alleged to be involved in perjury requires strict proof in the sense that it has to be proven beyond every reasonable doubt. It is a quasi-criminal allegation and on the other hand, it is a criminal allegation. If somebody is found guilty of perjury, imprisonment is attached.

“But be that as it may, merely accusing a candidate of perjury requires the person to purge himself of it. If he purges himself of the allegation, the court cannot stop him. Where such a candidate has not purged himself of the allegation, and the court goes ahead and considers what I call peripheral evidence, it would be set aside on appeal,” he added.

While stating that the burden lies on the person who alleges because the law is that he who alleges must prove, Dr Omodele queried: “Under what basis is perjury, what are the characteristics of saying a candidate has committed perjury?

“Those characteristics must be fulfilled. Number one was the alleged perjury committed in the face of the court, and number two, what is the nature of the perjury said to have been committed? Is it by affidavit or by giving oral evidence in court or by giving evidence on oath?

“Some people do make great mistakes in the sense that when they see a fraction of an allegation, they quickly go on air to say the person has committed perjury. But when you look at it deeply, you will see that the element of perjury is not even involved,” he added.

In admitting that the court is a court of arbiter that has to look at both sides, he said it also requires that the person who alleges should bring his facts and the allegee would also bring his facts.

Dr. Omodele, therefore, admonishes that for anybody to allege that the other party has committed perjury, he must think deeply, he must subject it to thorough legal analysis, and not a mere assumption of suspicion. (New Telegraph)