Category: Lead

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) opposed the reliefs being sought by Obi and the LP, on the one hand, and Atiku and the PDP on the other, saying they were not grantable.

Addressing the LP’s prayers, the electoral umpire asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to reject the prayers, which among others seek the declaration of Obi as winner of the February 25 poll.

INEC, the 1st respondent, stated this in the reply filed by its lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), at the PEPC’s Secretariat, in Abuja on April 10.

The commission prayed the court to either “dismiss or strike out the petition for being grossly incompetent, abusive, vague, nebulous, generic, general, non-specific, ambiguous, equivocal, hypothetical and academic.”

In their petition marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 filed by lead counsel, Livy Ozoukwu, Obi and the LP are of the view that Tinubu “was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election.”

Obi and the LP, who claimed that there was rigging in 11 states, alleged that INEC violated its regulations when it announced the results when the totality of the polling unit results was yet to be fully scanned, uploaded and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.

Listed as respondents in the petition are INEC, Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and the APC.

But in its response, INEC argued that the grounds on which the petition was based were defective, having regard to the vague and imprecise averments supporting the said grounds.

INEC noted that, in relation to their claim of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and corrupt practices, the petitioners failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action by their failure to plead specific particulars and figures as to how the alleged non-compliance, which they claimed substantially, affected the results of the election.

The commission argued that the petitioners’ ground, hinged on their claim that Tinubu was not elected by majority of lawful votes cast, is defective, owing to their failure to plead the alleged unlawful votes to be deducted and/or lawful votes to be credited to the petitioners.

INEC said that the petitioners’ prayer for the tribunal to declare that Obi scored majority of lawful votes cast at the election and be declared winner was equally defective in view of the petitioners’ “failure to join necessary parties and for lack of requisite particulars and pleading to support same.”

It contended that it was impossible for the tribunal to return Obi as the winner of the election, having not polled the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and/or secured one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of, at least, two-thirds of all states in the federation and the FCT.

INEC noted that the law required all political parties, intending to sponsor candidates in the election, to submit lists of their agents and were expected to observe the election process at their units, sign and collect result sheets on behalf of their political parties at the close of polls.

The commission added that some of the party agents whose names were on the list submitted to it were however, absent at their polling units while some others, who were present, did not participate in the election process.

It further stated that the petitioners (Obi and LP) did not have agents in all the polling units across country because they only submitted a list of 134, 874 polling agents, which is 41, 972 short of the 176, 846 polling units nationwide.

It added that the petitioners were not represented in many or some of the polling units across the country.

As against the petitioners’ contention, INEC insisted that Tinubu and Shettima were duly declared and returned elected and issued Certificates of Return, having fulfilled the requirements of the constitution to be declared winners and returned.

It added that Shettima was duly nominated and sponsored to contest the election as the vice presidential candidate.

INEC prayed the court to dismiss the petition by Obi and the LP.

25 per cent votes issue

INEC said Tinubu did not have to score 25 per cent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) before being declared president-elect.

The president-elect polled 8.8 million votes to beat Atiku, who came second and Obi who came third.

The two runners up had argued that to be declared the winner of the presidential election, a candidate must also score 25 per cent of votes cast in two-third of the 36 states and the FCT.

The two-third of the 36 states is 24. Mr Tinubu won 25 per cent of the votes cast in 29 states but secured only about 18.99 per cent in the FCT.

Atiku’s petition challenged Tinubu’s victory on, among other grounds, that the former Lagos State governor failed to secure the statutory 25 per cent of votes cast in two-thirds (24 states) and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

The petitioner, who urged the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja to either declare him the winner of the election or nullify it and order a rerun, also secured only 15.5 per cent of the votes in Abuja.

Obi won Abuja by securing 58.85 per cent of the votes in the capital city. Obi, despite coming third, is similarly challenging Tinubu’s victory in court, on among other grounds, that the president-elect failed to secure up to 25 per cent votes in Abuja.

However, in a preliminary objection to Atiku’s petition, the electoral umpire argued that there was no basis for the call for “a run-off and/or nullification of the said election.”

‘Why 25 per cent votes in Abuja is not mandatory’

Read Also: INEC and the sanctity of the February 25 Presidential poll

Justifying its declaration of Tinubu as the President-elect, the electoral umpire said by scoring 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in 29 states, Tinubu “has satisfied the requirement of the constitution to be declared winner of the presidential election thus rendering the requirement of having 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in Federal Capital Territory unnecessary.”

Citing section 134 (2) (b) of the constitution, INEC contended that its declaration and return of Tinubu “was not wrongful…having scored one-quarter of valid votes cast in 29 states which is beyond the constitutional threshold for declaration.”

It further argued that Nigeria’s constitution confers the status of a state on the FCT (Abuja) “and ought to be recognised as one of the states of the federation.”

The FCT “beyond being the Capital of Nigeria has no special status over and above the other 36 states of the federation to require a candidate in the presidential election to obtain at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT before being declared winner of the presidential election,” the electoral umpire explained.

Inferring the intentions of the framers of the Nigerian constitution, INEC said a presidential candidate is expected to have “a national geographical spread and broad acceptability from the Nigerian electorate and not meant to bestow a veto power on the FCT or its electorate over the election of a candidate at a presidential election who has otherwise scored one-quarter of the votes cast in two-thirds of the 36 states except in the FCT.”

‘Votes not suppressed’

INEC further refuted Atiku’s claims of electoral malpractices comprising alleged voter suppression, manipulation of votes and Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) machines in favour of Tinubu.

“No votes were suppressed,” it said.

The electoral umpire contended that no ballots, ballot boxes, BVAS devices, accreditation and collation, or election material logistics were manipulated” as alleged by Atiku and the PDP.

It maintained that there “was no intimidation and harassment, massive thumb-printing of ballot papers, destruction of electoral materials, mutilations, cancellations and overwriting on result sheets, inflation, deflation of scores and wrong entries in result sheets as alleged by the petitioners” during the February presidential election.

According to INEC, Tinubu scored 25 per cent votes in – Ekiti, Kwara, Osun, Ondo, Ogun, Oyo, Yobe, Lagos, Gombe, Adamawa, Katsina, Jigawa, Nasarawa, Niger, Benue, Akwa-Ibom, Edo, Kogi, Bauchi, Plateau, Bayelsa, Kaduna, Kebbi, Kano, Zamfara, Sokoto, Taraba and Rivers State.

‘Impossible to declare Atiku president’

INEC argued that Atiku’s prayers to the court to be declared president were impossible.

It said the PDP presidential candidate “failed to score at least one-quarter of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 states of the federation and the FCT and as such could not have been declared the winner of the presidential election…”

To further justify its crowning of Tinubu as president-elect, the electoral umpire noted that “the margin of lead between” Tinubu and Atiku was 1,810,206, adding that the total number of Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) collected in areas where elections did not hold or were cancelled were 994,151.

The issue of election disputation has become a recurring element in the nation’s electoral process.
With the exception of some few cases, the outcome of every presidential election has been subjected to litigation, beginning from 1979. As the nation eagerly awaits the commencement of hearing by the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on the five petitions filed against the outcome of the 2023 presidential election, Eric Ikhilae, in this report, reviews past experiences.

1979

The presidential election of 1979 was held on August 11. It was contested by five candidates – Chief Obafemi Awolowo of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN); Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe of the Nigerian People’s Party (NPP);  Alhaji Aminu Kano of the  People’s Redemption Party (PRP); Alhaji Ibrahim Waziri of the Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP),  and Alhaji Shehu Shagari of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN).

On August 16, 1979, the then electoral umpire, the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO)  declared  Shagari elected on the grounds that the votes cast in his favour satisfied the provisions of Section 34 A (1)(c)(I) and (ii) of the Electoral Decree 1977 (No. 73) as amended.

Section 34A(1)(c)(I) and (ii) provided that a presidential candidate will be deemed to have been duly elected to such office where he/she has the highest votes cast at the election, and has not less than one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of, at least, two-thirds of all the states in the federation.

Awolowo, who came second, challenged the outcome of the election at the election tribunal, which sat in Lagos. His petition was hinged on on the grounds that Shagari did not satisfy the requirement under Section 34 A(i)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Decree  to be so declared.

The tribunal, in its judgment, dismissed the petition and affirmed the return of Shagari as the winner of the election.

A dissatisfied Awolowo appealed to the Supreme Court and urged among others that the decision of the tribunal be set aside on the grounds that it misconstrued the provision of Section 34 A(i)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Decree.

Awolowo argued that the provision “in each of at least two thirds of all the states within the federation,” contained in the said section, means 13 states because there is nothing either in the Electoral Decree of 1977 or the Electoral (amendment) Decree of 1978 authorizing the fractionalization of a state for the purpose of determining two thirds of its votes.

 The UPN candidate further argued that since the  fractionalization of a state in this context is unlawful, the phrase should instead be interpreted to mean that a candidate must score 25percent of the votes in at least 13 out of the then 19 states of the federation.

In a split decision of six-to-one, the Supreme Court, in its judgment on September 26, 1979 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the tribunal.

In the lead majority judgment, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Atanda Fatai-Willaims held: “If the number 13 which is the nearest to two-thirds of a state had been intended,  the Federal Military Government would have said so in clear terms.

“In any case, as between 13 states and 12 2/3 states, the figure of 12 2/3 considering all the circumstances, appears to us to be the intention of the Federal Military Government in the context of sub-paragraph (ii) of Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 34A.

“Furthermore, it is, we think, fallacious to talk of fractionalisation of the physical land area of a State when the operative words of Section 34(1)(c)(ii) relate undoubtedly to the votes cast by the voters in the state at the election.

“Quite apart from the compliance with the provisions of Section 34A(1)(c)(ii) of the Decree as found by us, even if we had found that there had been non-compliance with the said provision, we would have evoked the provisions of Section III Sub-section (1) of the Decree, which provides that non-compliance with Part II of the Decree did not affect the result of the election, and held that the election to the office of the President was conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of Section 34A(1)(c)(ii) which is within Part II of the Decree.”

Except Justice Kayode Eso, who dissented, other members of the seven-man panel – Justices Mohammed Bello, Mohammed Uwais, Andrews Otutu Obaseki, Ayo Gabriel Irikefe and  Chike Idigbe – agreed with the majority decision.

1983

The presidential election of1983  was held on August 6, with FEDECO retiring Shagari, the incumbent, as the winner over Obafemi Awolowo of the UPN,  Nnamdi Azikiwe of the NPP among others.

Although the outcome of the election was equally disputed in view of the level of malpractices and violence witnessed, it was not clear if any tribunal handed out any decision before the military struck about three months after the took the oath of office for the second time.

1999

The presidential election held in 1999 on February 27.

Two candidates eventually contested the election, even though three parties were cleared by the outgoing military regime, headed by General Abdulsalami Abubakar, to contest the 1999 general elections.

Three parties were the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the All Peoples Party (APP) and the Alliance for Democracy (AD).

While the PDP fielded Olusegun Obasanjo as its candidate, the APP and the AD jointly presented Olu Falae as their candidate on the platform of the APP.

At the end of the election, the electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Obasanjo the winner, a decision Falae and APP/AD challenged, claiming, among others, that Obasanjo was not eligible to run in the election and that the PDP candidate won through monumental electoral fraud.

In its judgment in April 1999 the Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed Falae’s case in the grounds that he failed to prove his allegations.

Another petition against Obasanjo’s election in 1999 filed by Chuba Egolum was dismissed for lacking in merit.

 Egolum, who described himself as a concerned citizen, had petitioned the court, seeking the nullification of results of the 27 February 27 election, on which basis Obasanjo was declared winner by the electoral umpire.

2003

In 2003, Obasanjo as the incumbent President, contested for a second term in the presidential held in April 19, 2003. He was declared winner by INEC.

Some candidates in the election, including now President Muhammadu Buhari (who was the candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party – ANPP); Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (who flew the flag of the All Progressives Grand Alliance – APGA), and Mohammed Dikko Yusuf (who ran on the platform of the Movement for Democracy and Justice – MDJ) challenged the result.

Buhari and his party filed a petition at the tribunal sitting at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

The petition was hinged on three grounds, with one alternate ground:

*That the election is invalid for reasons of non-compliance with substantial sections of the Electoral Act 2002.

* That the election is invalid for reason of corrupt practices.

*An order of the court that at the time of the election the 1st respondent (Obasanjo) was not qualified to contest

In the alternative:

*That the respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election and did not score one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2002. ”

The petitioners sought three main reliefs:

*An order of the court, that the election is invalid for reasons of non-compliance with substantial sections of the Electoral Act 2002.

* An order of the court that the election is invalid for reason of corrupt practices.

*An order of the court that at the time of the election the 1st respondent was not qualified to contest.

In its lead majority decision rendered on December 20, 2004 the tribunal dismissed the petition. Justice Sylvanus Nsofor however dissented.

In the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, Justice Francis Tabai said: “I have considered the evidence support of the allegations in  each of the 14 states in which elections were questioned.”

The states in which the petitioners alleged corrupt malpractices were Cross River, Akwa Ibom, River, Bayelsa, Taraba, Adamawa, Kaduna, Ogun, Ebonyi, Benue, Imo, Enugu, Kogi and Edo states.

In the judgement, Justice Tabai voided the election in some Local Governments, Wards and polling units in the other 13 states and the whole of Ogun State on the grounds that there was disparity in the total of votes returned in both the presidential and governorship elections held in the state on the same day.

In relation to Ogun State, he held: “The result of my finding in that case is that the presidential election of 19/4/03 in Ogun State was not conducted in substantial conformity with Electoral Act, 2002 and is accordingly nullified.”

He added: “The question is the effect of this annulment on the election in the country. For the determination of this question, I refer to the provisions of Section 134(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” he said.

Section 134(2) of the 1999 Constitution provides:

“A candidate for an election to the office of the president shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election, he has the highest number of votes cast at the election,and he has not less than one quarter of the votes cast at the ection in each of, at least, two-thirds of all the states in the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

Justice Tabai added: “This provision appears clear to me. Where a candidate wins the highest number of votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 states in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, he is deemed to be elected.

“I do appreciate any ambiguity in the provision and even if there was one, this court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible.

“In my view, it would lead to absurdity and manifest injustice to nullify the election for the entire nation because of the nullification of the election of one state, some Local Government Areas, Wards and Units.

“Such a devastating result could hardly have been contemplated by the framers of  the Constitution.

“It is my conclusion therefore, that the cancellation of the election in Ogun State and the other smaller components does not substantially affect the election of the 1st and 2nd respondents (Obasanjo and his running mate, Atiku Abubakar).

“In the event, this petition fails and same is dismissed with costs which I assess at N5,000 in favour of each set of respondents,” Justice Tabai said.

Buhari and his party appealed to the Supreme Court, and in its judgment on July 15, 2005, the apex court set aside the nullification of the election in Ogun State and dismissed the appeal by Buhari and others.

In restoring the results of the presidential election in Ogun State, the Supreme Court held that the evidence given by Chief Bisi Lawal who was the ANPP’s governorship candidate in the state and who testified as the petitioners’ first witness (PW1) was hearsay because he only acted as election coordinator for his party in the state.

The court added that the petitioners’ failure to call the ANPP’s agents from whom Chief Lawal received reports of substantial non-conformity with the Electoral Act was fatal to their case.

It concluded that the petitioners failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the manipulation alleged to have taken place in Ogun State.

In the lead judgment, the then CJN, Justice Mohammed Uwais said: “The evidence adduced at the trial in the Court of Appeal, by the 1st and 2nd appellants/respondents was not sufficient to enable the Court of Appeal hold that the election was not held substantially in ccordance with the principles of the Electoral Act.

“This was so despite the Court of Appeal nullifying the election in Ogun tate.

“In this court, we are atisfied that the testimony Chief Bisi Lawal (PW1) which the Court of Appeal relied heavily upon to nullify the election in Ogun State was based on hearsay, which is unreliable and by Evidence Act, inadmissible.

“The documents the witnesses tendered were not, in the absence of evidence of the makers, reliable.

“Again the  failure of the Electoral Officers,  Presiding Officers and Returning Officers to take Oath of loyalty and neutrality is of no moment, since the form of the oath is omitted in the Electoral Act and cannot be found in the Oaths Act.

“All these have further  weakened the petitioners’ case of non-compliance with the ‘provisions of the Electoral Act.

“In sum, the case made by the 1st and 2nd appellants/ cross-respondents before the Court of Appeal, which did not entitle them to the judgment of the court in their favour, is even weaker before this court.

“I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of the Electoral Act,” Justice Uwais said.

Other members of the seven-man panel – Justices Salihu Belgore, Idris Kutigi, Akintola Ejiwunmi, Dennis Edozie, Ignatius Pat-Acholonu and Sunday Akintan – agreed with the lead judgment.

The Supreme Court similarly held in favour of Obasanjo and the PDP in the petitions by, Ojukwu and Yusuf.

In its judgment on July 2, 2004 in the Ojukwu case, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court described the appeal as “an attempt to trivialize the judicial process.”

2007

The presidential election was held on  April 21, 2007, with he candidate of the PDP, Umaru Yar’Adua (now late) declared winner b INEC.

Buhari (who again, ran with the ticket of the ANPP); Atiku Abubakar (who was the candidate of the Action Congress – AC), and Ambrose Owuru of the Hope Democratic Party (HDP) were among those who challenged Yar’Adua’s election at the tribunal.

Buhari hinged his petition on three grounds, to include that Yar’Adua was not been qualified to contest the election on account of findings of fraud and embezzlement against him by a Commission of Inquiry set up by the Governor of Abia State; that the election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2006, and that the election was marred by corrupt practices.

He prayed the tribunal to nullify the election.

The trial tribunal, in its judgements on February 26, 2008 dismissed the petitions against Yar’Adua’s election.

Justice James Ogebe, in the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal in the petitions by Buhari and Atiku, held that “since the two consolidated petitions have failed, Umaru Yar Adua and Goodluck Jonathan (the Vice President) remain validly elected.”

The decision was upheld by the majority decision in the split judgment of four-to-three rendered by the Supreme Court on December 12, 2008.

On the claim that Yar’Adua was not qualified to contest the election, the apex court held that there was nothing in the findings of the Commission of Inquiry set up by the Governor of Abia State, to suggest that Yar’Adua was specifically found guilty of embezzlement or fraud.

It added: “The purported finding by the Commission of Inquiry did not disqualify the fourth respondent (Yar’Adua) from contesting the election.

On the claim that the ballot papers were not serially numbered as required, the apex court found among others, the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to have enquired into the property or otherwise of the serialisation of the ballot papers used for the election.

It noted that there was no basis for the lower court to have found that the propriety and correctness of the serialisation of the ballot papers had affected the outcome of the election, adding that trial court lacked the competence or jurisdiction to make such a finding.

On the effect of conducting conducting an election with invalid ballot papers, the apex court found that

Section 45(2) of the Electoral Act 2006 was complied with.

It added that  a valid election can not be conducted without valid ballot papers, noting that Section 67 of the Electoral Act provided that ballot papers that did not comply with the requirements of the Act cannot be used in any election.

It however held that where a petitioner is able to prove non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, he/she is only entitled to succeed if the court is satisfied that such non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election.

In his final pronouncement, Justice Niki Tobi, in the lead majority decision, said: “The President and Vice President remain the President and Vice President of this country.”

Justices Idris Kutigi, Aloysius Katsina-Alu and Dahiru Musdapher agreed with the lead judgment, while Justices Walter  Onnoghen, Aloma Mukhtar and George Oguntade dissented

However, Yar’Adua in his inauguration speech, acknowledged the fraudulent nature of the election that brought him to office and subsequently constituted a high-powered Electoral Reforms Committee, which was chaired by Justice Mohammed Uwais.

The committee made far-reaching recommendations in its report, which was applauded by the nation, but which the late Yar’Adua and his successor Goodluck Jonathan implemented in a half-measured and perfunctory manner.

2011

The presidential election was held in 2011 on April 16 with President Goodluck Jonathan of the PDP running against a number of candidates from other parties, including Buhari (who ran on the platform of the Congress for Progressive Change – CPC) and Nuhu Ribadu (who was the candidate of the Action Congress of Nigeria – ACN).

When INEC eventually declared Jonathan the winner of the election, the other candidates protested.

Buhari, whose running mate was Pastor Tunde Bakare, challenge the outcome of the election of to the Supreme Court and lost.

In a unanimous judgment given on December 28, 2011 by a seven-member panel, the Supreme Court found, another others, that Buhari and his party failed to prove their case.

Justice Olufunmilayo Adekeye, in her final pronouncement in the lead judgment, said: “The judgment of the lower court is affirmed and consequently the third respondent (Goodluck Jonathan) … won the election conducted on 16 April 2011.”

2015

The presidential election was initially scheduled for February 15, 2015.

But, owing to claims of insecurity in the North-East and poor distribution of the Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) by INEC , the election eventually held on March 28. Buhari, who contested as the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was declared the winner of the election, defeating the incumbent, President Jonathan of the PDP.

The APC was a product of the merger between the ACN, the CPC, the ANPP and APGA.

And for the first time in many years, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal recorded no petition filed against the APC’s victory in the 2015 election.

2019

The case was different in 2019 when President Buhari’s victory in the presidential election held on February 23, 2019 was challenged in court by other candidates, including  Atiku, who ran on the platform of the PDP.

Atiku contested the outcome of the election up to the Supreme Court and lost.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment of a seven-man panel led by the then CJN, Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, on October 30, 2019 held that the appeal by Atiku, marked: SC/1211/2019 was without merit. The apex court dismissed it nd proceeded to affirm the earlier decision of the trial tribunal.

In November 15, 2019 the apex court provided reasons for its decision.

The court determined the appeal on five issues, which  bordered on academic qualification, false information, majority of lawful votes cast, non-compliance with the Electoral Act and wrong admission of Buhari’s documents.

On the claim  by Atiku and his party that Buhari lacked  the educational qualification to contest the election as required under  Section 131(d) of the Nigerian constitution and 31 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 , the Supreme Court held that Section 318 of the Nigerian Constitution provides that “education up to secondary school level suffices as qualification without actual possession of the certificate.

“Also qualified is a person who has been educated up to secondary school certificate level as in sub-paragraph B. in this case, a person need not obtain a certificate; mere attendance in a school up to secondary school certificate level is what is required.”

The court further held that a person who possesses a secondary school certificate or Grade 2 Teacher’s Certificate or its equivalent, the City and Guilds Certificate is qualified to contest election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as contained in sub-paragraph A of Section 318.

“In sub-paragraph C, a person who has a primary 6 certificate or its equivalent and has served in the public or private sector of the federation in any capacity acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission, or a minimum of 10 years and has attended a number of courses and trainings in such institutions as may be acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission for periods totaling upto a minimum of one year; and ability to read, write, understand and communicate in English language to the satisfaction of the Independent National Electoral Commission and any other qualification acceptable by the Independent National Electoral Commission,” it said.

The court held that with the Cambridge certificate, WAEC certificate and group photograph of Katsina Provincial Secondary School tendered by Buhari, which were rightly admitted in evidence and relied on them to hold that Buhari was eminently qualified to contest election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The court held that the petitioners failed to prove their claim  that Buhari submitted false information to INEC in his Form CF001 accompanied by an affidavit deposed to before an FCT High Court on November 24, 2014 and October 8, 2018  wherein he “claimed that all his academic qualification documents as filled in his Presidential Form, President APC/001/2015 are currently with  the Secretary Military Board.”

The petitioners has averred that the military, through the Director of Army Public Relations, Brig. Gen. Olajide Olaleye, at a press briefing in January, 2015 denied that Buhari’s certificates were with the military .

In resolving this issue, the apex court held that newspaper cuttings and videos of the press conference addressed by Gen. Olaleye, which the petitioners tendered without him being subpoenaed to appear in person before the court, were insufficient.

It added that it was not enough to make such claim, which was of criminal nature, without proof, noting that “the position of the law is that he who alleges must prove.”

The apex court also resolved, in favour of Buhari, the claim that the names on his certificates being: ‘Mohamed’ and ‘Muhammadu’ is not same as himself. It explained that “the names belong to the 2nd respondent (Buhari) as nobody has come out to claim those documents.”

 The court also faulted the contention by  Atiku and PDP that Buhari and the APC were not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast in the election and that results uploaded on the INEC server showed that they (the petitioners) polled 18, 356, 732 votes as against the 16, 741, 430 votes recorded for Buhari and the APC.

The court held that Atiku and his party failed to prove that the website/“server” containing the results tendered through the Kenyan ICT expert, David Ayu Njorgu: www.factsdontlie.com belonged to INEC.

It dismissed the petitioners’ claim of the existence of the “server,”  noting that it had no “ascertainable domain” and was supplied by an anonymous person.

Atiku and his party had alleged that the election was conducted in breach of the Electoral Act, 2010 and the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2019 with acts of inflation and deflation of votes, non-authentication of voters’ cards, wrong entries of results and other acts.

In its finding on the issue, the  apex court held  that the law holds the presumption of regularity in any election conducted by INEC, except disproved otherwise.

 It further held that it was not enough for the petitioner to make allegations without calling sufficient evidence, noting that Atiku and the PDP only called five polling units agents in a petition which they sought to nullify a presidential election.

The court noted that PW62 (Osita Chidoka) who was announced as ‘star witness’ admitted in his evidence that he was in the situation room during the election and therefore did not witness what was happening in the field.

Atiku and PDP had equally claimed that the tribunal erred in law when it held that  Buhari’s WAEC and Cambridge certificates and other documents (R1 to R26, P85 and P86) were properly admitted in evidence, and that the candidate is not required “to attach his certificates to FORM CF001 before the candidate can be considered or adjudged to have the requisite educational qualifications to contest election.”

In its judgment, the apex court held that Buhari rightly pleaded facts relevant to the exhibits listed in his INEC form, such as certificates and photographs with school mates, charts and other materials that attest to the free and fair conduct of the election.

“If paragraph 41 (a) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) requires documents to be either listed or filed before it can be received in evidence, the 2nd respondent properly listed the exhibits submitted to the court below, and so I do not see any reason why the court below would not admit them in evidence,” the court said.

Incidentally, there has never been an instance where petitioners in the various presidential election disputations, before now, successfully proved their allegations.

The closest was in respect of the petition by Buhari against the outcome of the 2007 election.

The then ruling party and its candidate (PDP and Yar’ Adua escaped by the skin of their teeth, with the Supreme Court upholding the election by a split decision of four-to-three.

Five out of the 17 parties that participated in the February 25, 2023, presidential elections are challenging the victory of President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress (APC). Robert Egbe examines their petitions as filed before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting at the Court of Appeal, in Abuja.

With the exception of the 2015 election, every presidential contest since Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999 has passed through post-election litigation.

This year is no different, with no fewer than five parties challenging the victory of President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the ruling APC. 

Tinubu’s 8.8million votes were more than enough to secure victory over the 17 parties that took part in the polls and earned him the Certificate of Return issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

But the aggrieved five – Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate Atiku Abubakar; Labour Party (LP) and its standard bearer Peter Obi; Action Alliance (AA); All Peoples Movement (APM); and the Action Peoples Party (APP) and its candidate, Nnadi Osita – have disputed the results declared by INEC Chairman Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu.

They approached the PEPC sitting at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, with a series of claims and prayers seeking to void the election or – as the PDP and LP see it – take back their mandate.

Their prayers generally have a common goal: to cancel Tinubu’s victory.

Read Also: Tinubu to tribunal: petitions by Atiku, PDP not competent

Particularly, they are seeking to invalidate his win by arguing that he could not have won because he did not score 25 per cent of the votes cast in Abuja; that he was ineligible to contest; that he lied about some of the schools he attended; that he was convicted in the United States over the forfeiture of over $460,000 in an alleged drug case; that Vice-President-elect, Kashim Shettima, was not qualified to contest and that the electoral umpire erred in not complying with the Electoral Act on the immediate transmission of results, among others.

But Tinubu has rejected the allegations and defended his mandate. He noted, for instance, that third-place candidate Obi was seeking to be declared President-elect over second-place candidate Atiku, but did not join Atiku and the PDP in his petition

“For the tribunal to grant prayer (iii) of the petitioners, the tribunal must have set aside the scores and election of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar,” he said, noting that this could not happen because Obi’s petition failed to join Atiku and his party.

The ruling party also denied that Tinubu’s forfeiture of the $460,000 in 1993 amounted to a conviction, saying it was also irrelevant to his eligibility having occurred over 29 years ago.

INEC similarly dismissed the petitioners’ claims, arguing that their reliefs were not grantable.

In particular, the commission said, among others, that Tinubu did not have to score 25 per cent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) before being declared president-elect.

Incidentally, no petitioner has succeeded in successfully proving their allegations and overturning a presidential election result. Will this year be the same? Only time will tell.

With the composition of the 10th National Assembly gradually taking shape, The Nation can report only 142 Senators and House of Representatives members of the 9th Assembly will be returning to the parliament when it is inaugurated in June 2023.

This is made up of 33 Senators and 109 members of the House of Representatives across the 36 styates and the FCT.

About 11 States have no Senator returning to the National Assembly while Anambra is the only State with a returning member in the House of Representatives.

The States without a returning Senator are Bauchi, Delta, Ebonyi, Enugu, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Ogun and Ondo states.

However, Senator Adeola Olamilekun who moved from Lagos West to Ogun West is the only Senator returning to the Senate even though he has not served in the State before.

READ ALSO: ​Taraba Reps member-elect Maihanchi dies in Abuja

Among the Senators not returning to the National Assembly are Vice President Elect, Kashim Shettima and Deputy National Chairman, North of the APC, Abubakar Kyari.

About 77 Senators and 251 Members will be coming to the Senate and House of Representatives for the first time.

A few of the new Senators are however serving members of the House of Representatives.

In the House of Representatives, The Nation finding revealed that the South East has the lowest percentage of members returning to the House with only 6 members out of the 43 members from the zone, representing 17.5 percent.

In terms of numbers, the North West has the highest number of lawmakers bot returning to the House with 70 members losing their ticket either at the primary level of during the general election.

The South East has 43 members in the House of Representatives, South-south has 55 members, South West has 71 members, North East has 48, North Central has 51 (including the FCT with 2) and North West has 92 members.

Out of this, only 6 members are returning to the House from the South East, 18 members from the south south, 26 from the south west, 17 from North East, 20 from North central and 22 from North west.

Lagos has the highest number of returning members per State while all the lawmakers from Anambra state lost their seats to the Obidient revolution.

About 15 women made it to the 10th House of Representatives, an increase from 12 in the outgoing 9th Assembly, while only 3 women made it to the Senate.

The Chairman Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), Mrs Abike Dabiri-Erewa has said the commission is making arrangements to evacuate Nigerians from Sudan.

She, however, explained that it is impossible for any flights to leave at this time.

This is contained in a statement by Mr Gabriel Odu, Media, Public Relations and Protocols Unit, NIDCOM in Abuja.

Dabiri-Erewa said the Nigerian Mission in Sudan and the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) had put in place arrangements for evacuation of students and citizens stranded in Sudan.

She said that the tense situation in Sudan made it “risky and impossible for any flights at this point in time”.

According to her, aircrafts parked at the airport were burnt.

READ ALSO: Senate reschedules resumption to May 2

She also said humanitarian groups were seeking ways of getting food, water and medicals across to people.

She appealed to the warring parties to consider the Juba Peace Agreement pronounced by Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).

She said the agreement was a fundamental mechanism for the restoration of peace and tranquility in the country.

The agreement is a step in the Sudanese peace process that aims to achieve stability and peace in Sudan after decades of multiple civil conflicts, which have killed more than 300,000 people and displaced more than 2.5 million.

Sudan’s military and paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on Thursday separately announced a 24-hour ceasefire but hostilities continued past the deadline.

However, the intensity reportedly dropped significantly on Saturday morning.

The Sudan conflict is an ongoing armed conflict between rival factions of the military government of Sudan.

It began on 15 April 2023, when clashes broke out across the country, mainly in the capital city of Khartoum and the Darfur region.

Fighting has intensified around the capital’s airport, closing its airspace, and near hospitals, hampering evacuation efforts and treatment of wounded.

Thousands have been injured. Civilians also are struggling with power outages and food shortages.

U.N. relief efforts have also been halted.

(NAN) (www.nannews.ng)