Supreme Court to state reasons for Buhari-Atiku election judgment Friday
The Supreme Court will on Friday, November 15, state reasons for its
judgment dismissing the appeal filed by the People’s Democratic Party
(PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, against the
declaration of President Muhammad Buhari as the winner of the Febraury
23 presidential election.
Already, notice has been issued by the apex court notifying all parties of the date.
The
said notice issued by the Ibrahim Gold and dated November 13, 2019
reads: “The reasons for the judgment delivered on Wednesday the 30th day
of October 2019 in appeal no SC1211/2019: Atiku Abubakar, INEC & 2
others will be listed before the Supreme Court of Nigeria on Friday the
15th day of November, 2019 at 9.00 am.
“And further take notice
that in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, this Notice is deemed
sufficiently served on you if it is delivered on your telephone.”
The
Supreme Court had in its summary judgment dismissed the appeal by the
PDP and Atiku Abubakar, its candidate, against the re-election of
President Muhammadu Buhari.
The seven-member panel led by Justice
Tanko Mohammed held that having gone through all the documents and
exhibits two weeks ago, the panel discovered that the appeal lacks
merit.
“We have examined the submissions of parties in this
matter and the exhibit adduced and we have come to a conclusion that
this appeal lacks merit, appeal is hereby dismissed.
“A date for reason would be communicated to the parties,” Mr Mohammed ruled.
Mr
Abubakar and his party, on September 23, filed 66 grounds of appeal
before the Supreme Court after the presidential election petition
tribunal at the Court of Appeal on September 11 dismissed their petition
against Mr Buhari’s re-election.
Following the tribunal’s
judgment affirming the re-election of President Buhari, the PDP filed
its request before the apex court challenging the decision.
The
PDP and Mr Abubakar said the Court of Appeal panel that heard their
petition erred in law when it ruled that President Buhari did not need
to submit an actual certificate to INEC as part of documents in his
CF001.
The PDP also said the presidential tribunal erred when it
ruled that the PDP did not provide sufficient evidence to back its claim
that Mr Buhari did not attend a secondary school among other issues.
During
the court hearing on Wednesday, before the seven-member panel read its
about one-minute decision, lawyers in the matter had argued why the
appeal should or should not be dismissed.
The lead lawyer
representing the petitioners, Levy Uzoukwu, while trying to prove his
point started with the issue of Mr Buhari’s qualification.
He
said it is on record that the second respondent failed to give any
explanation between the first name of the respondent which is
‘Muhammadu’ and the first name appearing on the picture which was
tendered as exhibit R19/R21, which is ‘Mohamed’.
Mr Uzoukwu
backing up his argument said the lower court speculated that the name
belongs to the second respondent with “No reason, no evidence,” he
added.
The senior counsel, presenting the issue of Mr Buhari’s
certificate, also said no reason was given by Mr Buhari on record why it
is impossible to bring forth any of the three certificates he claimed
he possessed.
“Nobody, not even his witness could give evidence that they have seen the original, Certified True Copy (CTC) or photocopy.
“In
the same vein, Mr Buhari claimed he had primary school certificate,
there is no testimony from the primary and secondary schoool he claimed
he attended. Not even a qualification from Cadet,” Mr Uzoukwu said.
On
the issue of server, Mr Uzoukwu said the electoral umpire denied having
a server but “I submit that if the first respondent appreciates, he
should never have denied its existence because they failed to call
witnesses, they failed to establish where they store card reader data
and Permanent Voters Card (PVC) data.”
According to Mr Atiku’s
lawyer, the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) counsel
relied on section 52(2) of the Electoral Act to contend that electronic
election is prohibited in the country.
Mr Uzoukwu said the
provision INEC relied on was amended and deleted and replaced by another
provision in 2015, that is that there is a new section 52(2), he
explained.
“The lower court relied on the old provision and we
did draw the attention of the lower court on this issue. The new
provision has not been interpreted or applied by this or any other
court. I urge the court to allow the appeal,” Mr Uzoukwu pleaded.
Responding,
the lawyer to INEC, Yunus Usman, said the first respondent would adopt
its brief of argument filed October 12 but submitted that “the
appellants have woefully failed to prove that the first appellant scored
the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
“This is
because out of over 191,000 polling units(PU), they called only five PU
agents to prove that they scored the majority of the lawful votes cast,
when the requirement of the law is that a PU agent must be called to
testify in each of the PU across the country. I do not know why they are
here. The failure to do so is fatal to their case,” Mr Usman added.
Replying
to the PDP on the issue of server, Mr Usman said neither of the
appellants has proved the particular server they created in March after
the election titled www.factsdontlie.com.
”Until the Electoral Act is amended, INEC does not have the power to transmit electronically.
“We urge the court to dismiss the appeal with substantial cost.”
When
asked about section 55(2) of the Electoral Act, Mr Usman said the
section allows INEC to conduct voting in an election either
electronically or manually, and that the first respondent chose
manually.
On his part, Mr Buhari’s lawyers led by Wole Olanipekun
said they would also adopt their brief of argument filed October 15 and
urged the court to dismiss the appeal which, he further said, should
not have been brought before the court after the painstaking decision of
the Appeal Court.
Mr Olanipekun said Mr Uzoukwu tried “to make a
mountain out of a molehill, without distinction. According to him,
nobody gave an explanation to the difference between ‘Muhammadu’ and
‘Mohamed’.
“He who lives in a glass house does not throw stones.
The same lower court ruled in favour of the second respondent, where it
held that Levi is the same as Livinus.
“The Constitution has prescribed what a candidate should provide while vying for a position,” Mr Olanipekun added.
“On
the issue of server they said no member of the appeal panel made
findings that INEC had a server. The finding is that there is a website
managed and controlled by the electoral umpire.
“Under the
evidence act, if there was a server, it should have been tendered
because it would be a public document, the court cannot speculate.”
Citing
a case to buttress his point, the senior counsel submitted that there
was nothing in the case, stressing that law is not about sentiment.
The
All Progressive Congress (APC) lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi, on his part also
relied on the process too and urged the court to dismiss the appeal and
“as well as the court can carry it, throw it,” he added.
In addition, on the issue of name, he said the appellant did not mention it in their petition.
”The petition is innocent of this averment.”
“On
the issue of qualification, I submit with respect that section 318 of
the Constitution spells out what the person vying for the presidency
must have.”
After all arguments by lawyers in the matter, the
court stood down for about 20 minutes and returned to dismiss the
appeal. The court said its reasons for the decision would be given on a
later date to be communicated to the counsels.