Dear Arise Team
On Obi saying he does not have evidence
When Peter Obi said he did not have evidence, he was speaking in the strict legal sense - evidence considered by the court as strong enough to satisfy the courts and overturn the declared result. The courts, for whatever reasons, did not consider the evidence presented sufficient.
But there is a difference between legal proof and reasonable inference.
Looking at what actually happened on election day, the technology worked in other elections but stopped working for the presidential election at a point when Peter Obi was clearly leading in several results being collated. The moment they switched off the saver, the result took another dimension. This may not constitute empirical evidence sufficient to win a case in court, but it is certainly evidence from reason. It raises a legitimate question about what happened and why.
We must also recognise that Nigerian courts operate within the broader Nigerian environment, with all the imperfections and limitations of our institutions—the phenomenon commonly described as the “Nigerian factor.”
The courts determine what has been legally proved; citizens are entitled to reason about what they witnessed. A court’s inability to establish a claim to the required legal standard does not necessarily erase every reasonable question about what actually happened.
Valentine Obienyem
Media Adviser to Peter Obi