Finally, the D-day is here. The Court of Appeal hearing the consolidated petition of the presidential candidate of All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Major-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd), and his Action Congress (AC) counterpart, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, against the election of President Umaru Yar’Adua will on Tuesday deliver judgment in the case.
Also, the Benue State Election Tribunal will deliver its verdict tomorrow in the petition against the Senate President, Senator David Mark, in the April 21 senatorial poll in the state.
The petition was filed by the ANPP candidate in the election, Alhaji Usman Abubakar.
When news filtered in yesterday that the presidential election tribunal had concluded plans to deliver judgment, the premises of the tribunal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja was besieged by supporters of parties to the suit.
Counsel to Buhari, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN); his Atiku counterpart, Mr. Emeka Ngige (SAN); and Yar’Adua’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), all expressed satisfaction with the development, saying they were keeping their fingers crossed.
They had all adopted their written addresses last week in the midst of the strike embarked upon by judicial workers in the country which had initially affected the case and crippled activities in other courts.
Atiku and Buhari are contesting the result of the April 21 presidential election, which had produced President Yar’Adua of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as winner.
They are insisting the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2006.
The tribunal had last week reserved judgment in the consolidated petitions.
In his final address, Buhari said the voters’ register used for the election was so irregular “that even photos of children featured in many documents”.
He claimed that he had established beyond reasonable doubts that results in form EC8D(A)s and EC8E were arbitrarily assigned without any election at the base.
Buhari said he had shown through different documents that results were written on different days before the election and after the results had been announced.
“It is submitted that where the so-called final results contain figures that were said to have arisen before the date of election and even after the so-called final result had been announced, then it would take minimal objectivity to come to a conclusion that the final result was arbitrarily put together,” he said.
Before closing his case, the AC candidate had applied to tender the official report of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
But the court upheld the objection of President Yar’Adua, saying the application was out of time and that if the petitioner knew it was vital to his case he would have tendered it earlier.
Atiku’s counsel, Prof. Babatunde Kasumu SAN, had complained that his answers, to the interrogatories served on him contradicted his account in the said report and accused him of perjury.
He said it was wrong for Iwu to insinuate that the contract for the printing of ballot papers was awarded to the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Plc which contradicted what he said in the official report of the election he presented in October last year that the ballot papers were printed by a South African company.
Atiku also insisted he was wrongfully excluded from the April 21, 2007 election.
The President’s counsel, Olanipekun, had objected to the application on several grounds, including that the INEC report was neither pleaded nor was any witness statement attached to the petition.
President Yar’Adua also told the court that Buhari had not proved any case against him because the criminal allegations made were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the same vein, INEC, represented by Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN), held that Buhari’s petition was like a tripod now resting on a single but very weak leg because both the party and Buhari’s running mate, Chief Edwin Ume-Ezeoke, had since withdrawn from the suit.
He argued that the petition indicated that Ume-Ezeoke enjoyed joint ticket and without him in the suit, nothing can be made out of all issues raised in the petition, stressing that the petition ought not to have been filed in the first place and consequently must suffer a dismissal.
The arguments of both Agabi and President Yar’Adua’s counsel, Olanipekun, with respect to Buhari’s petition were similar in that they submitted that the depositions made against the election were only from five out of 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, FCT Abuja.
Agabi argued that all the irregularities, alleged by the petitioner and which must affect the outcome of the election, were not attributed to INEC and that the court should not act on account of the allegation.
According to him, “The law insists on substantial compliance with the law and not total or absolute compliance. Election is not perfect anywhere. Our submission is that INEC properly documented the election. Therefore the allegation that there were malpractices in five states cannot stand because if the ballots are valid for 25 states, then they are valid for 36 states. It is a presidential election we are talking about and this petition must be dismissed.”
Olanipekun told the court that all allegations bordered on crimes and that the onus was on Buhari to prove beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding that it was an election matter, adding that it was just too late for the petitioner to abandon the criminal aspect at this stage of trial.
Responding, Ahamba (SAN), Buhari’s lawyer, clarified that the petition did not abandon any state and that the insinuation that evidence was led only in respect of five states was a ploy to distract the tribunal from the main issue of whether the results of the election were actually assigned or whether they arose from the election conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act.
He said INEC refused to further explanation on various discrepancies and urged the court to take cognizance of the European Union’s report on the election, saying if the law of the country allows monitors to observe its election, then reports emanating from such observation should be deemed relevant in the determination of the petition.
Ahamba submitted that there were results before and after the election and one contradicted the other and that coming from the same source, INEC, had only shown that it did not conduct a credible and acceptable election.
He said he never asked the court to set aside the practice direction and urged the court to allow the petition “because the election was badly conducted.”
With respect to Atiku’s arm of the consolidated petition, Olanipekun said the issue of exclusion is a life issue which the court must resolve within the narrow perspective of section 145 (1) (d) of the Electoral Act.
He said the petitioner had not demonstrated how ballot papers were stuffed nor tendered the smashed ballot boxes in his evidence.
Olanipekun submitted that Atiku was not excluded because the name of his party, AC, and the symbol were on the specimen of the ballot and appeared as No 1 on the list.
He argued that election was conducted and AC won in Lagos beating PDP mercilessly, saying having contested the election and results declared for the party in Oyo and other states, the petitioner could not ask the court to decide on the basis of media and European report.
The laws of the country, he said, specified how election should be conducted and such laws did not include foreign reports.
Also, the Benue State Election Tribunal will deliver its verdict tomorrow in the petition against the Senate President, Senator David Mark, in the April 21 senatorial poll in the state.
The petition was filed by the ANPP candidate in the election, Alhaji Usman Abubakar.
When news filtered in yesterday that the presidential election tribunal had concluded plans to deliver judgment, the premises of the tribunal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja was besieged by supporters of parties to the suit.
Counsel to Buhari, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN); his Atiku counterpart, Mr. Emeka Ngige (SAN); and Yar’Adua’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), all expressed satisfaction with the development, saying they were keeping their fingers crossed.
They had all adopted their written addresses last week in the midst of the strike embarked upon by judicial workers in the country which had initially affected the case and crippled activities in other courts.
Atiku and Buhari are contesting the result of the April 21 presidential election, which had produced President Yar’Adua of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as winner.
They are insisting the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2006.
The tribunal had last week reserved judgment in the consolidated petitions.
In his final address, Buhari said the voters’ register used for the election was so irregular “that even photos of children featured in many documents”.
He claimed that he had established beyond reasonable doubts that results in form EC8D(A)s and EC8E were arbitrarily assigned without any election at the base.
Buhari said he had shown through different documents that results were written on different days before the election and after the results had been announced.
“It is submitted that where the so-called final results contain figures that were said to have arisen before the date of election and even after the so-called final result had been announced, then it would take minimal objectivity to come to a conclusion that the final result was arbitrarily put together,” he said.
Before closing his case, the AC candidate had applied to tender the official report of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
But the court upheld the objection of President Yar’Adua, saying the application was out of time and that if the petitioner knew it was vital to his case he would have tendered it earlier.
Atiku’s counsel, Prof. Babatunde Kasumu SAN, had complained that his answers, to the interrogatories served on him contradicted his account in the said report and accused him of perjury.
He said it was wrong for Iwu to insinuate that the contract for the printing of ballot papers was awarded to the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Plc which contradicted what he said in the official report of the election he presented in October last year that the ballot papers were printed by a South African company.
Atiku also insisted he was wrongfully excluded from the April 21, 2007 election.
The President’s counsel, Olanipekun, had objected to the application on several grounds, including that the INEC report was neither pleaded nor was any witness statement attached to the petition.
President Yar’Adua also told the court that Buhari had not proved any case against him because the criminal allegations made were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the same vein, INEC, represented by Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN), held that Buhari’s petition was like a tripod now resting on a single but very weak leg because both the party and Buhari’s running mate, Chief Edwin Ume-Ezeoke, had since withdrawn from the suit.
He argued that the petition indicated that Ume-Ezeoke enjoyed joint ticket and without him in the suit, nothing can be made out of all issues raised in the petition, stressing that the petition ought not to have been filed in the first place and consequently must suffer a dismissal.
The arguments of both Agabi and President Yar’Adua’s counsel, Olanipekun, with respect to Buhari’s petition were similar in that they submitted that the depositions made against the election were only from five out of 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, FCT Abuja.
Agabi argued that all the irregularities, alleged by the petitioner and which must affect the outcome of the election, were not attributed to INEC and that the court should not act on account of the allegation.
According to him, “The law insists on substantial compliance with the law and not total or absolute compliance. Election is not perfect anywhere. Our submission is that INEC properly documented the election. Therefore the allegation that there were malpractices in five states cannot stand because if the ballots are valid for 25 states, then they are valid for 36 states. It is a presidential election we are talking about and this petition must be dismissed.”
Olanipekun told the court that all allegations bordered on crimes and that the onus was on Buhari to prove beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding that it was an election matter, adding that it was just too late for the petitioner to abandon the criminal aspect at this stage of trial.
Responding, Ahamba (SAN), Buhari’s lawyer, clarified that the petition did not abandon any state and that the insinuation that evidence was led only in respect of five states was a ploy to distract the tribunal from the main issue of whether the results of the election were actually assigned or whether they arose from the election conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act.
He said INEC refused to further explanation on various discrepancies and urged the court to take cognizance of the European Union’s report on the election, saying if the law of the country allows monitors to observe its election, then reports emanating from such observation should be deemed relevant in the determination of the petition.
Ahamba submitted that there were results before and after the election and one contradicted the other and that coming from the same source, INEC, had only shown that it did not conduct a credible and acceptable election.
He said he never asked the court to set aside the practice direction and urged the court to allow the petition “because the election was badly conducted.”
With respect to Atiku’s arm of the consolidated petition, Olanipekun said the issue of exclusion is a life issue which the court must resolve within the narrow perspective of section 145 (1) (d) of the Electoral Act.
He said the petitioner had not demonstrated how ballot papers were stuffed nor tendered the smashed ballot boxes in his evidence.
Olanipekun submitted that Atiku was not excluded because the name of his party, AC, and the symbol were on the specimen of the ballot and appeared as No 1 on the list.
He argued that election was conducted and AC won in Lagos beating PDP mercilessly, saying having contested the election and results declared for the party in Oyo and other states, the petitioner could not ask the court to decide on the basis of media and European report.
The laws of the country, he said, specified how election should be conducted and such laws did not include foreign reports.
No comments:
Post a Comment