The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Atiku Abubakar

  • Tribunal rejects PDP’s, Atiku’s request to re-argue APC’s objection to petition

    The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) has rejected the request by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in this year’s presidential election, Atiku Abubakar, to re-argue a motion by the All Progressives Congress (APC) seeking the dismissal of the petition.

    The tribunal, on June 11, ruled that the petitioners – PDP and Atiku – had no response to the motion by the APC, on the grounds that they failed to file a counter-affidavit.

    It was the ruling the petitioners prayed the court to set aside and allow them to formally respond to the motion.

    But the tribunal rejected the request in a ruling yesterday.

    In a unanimous ruling delivered by the Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Mohammed Garba, it was held that the petitioners were out of time to respond to the third respondent’s motion, having elected not to do so earlier.

    The tribunal stated that the seven days allowed under the Electoral Act for such a response had elapsed.

    Justice Garba averred that it was established beyond doubt that the motion by the APC was duly served on the petitioners on May 16, a day after it was filed.

    The judge said it was a fatal error and mistake on the part of the petitioners to have elected to file only a notice of objection but failed to file a counter-affidavit, as required by law, in denial of the claims contained in the motion by the APC.

    As against the claim by the petitioners’ legal team that a refusal of their application amounted to denial of fair hearing, Justice Garba said the petitioners were represented by their lawyers in all the proceedings, and that the counsel elected to adopt a tactic that suited their choice.

    He said: “We agree that the court has the power to exercise discretion, but in the instant case, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and judiciously.

    “And since the petitioners in this matter did not advance cogent and verifiable reasons for exercising discretion in their favour, we hereby refuse to do so.

    “From the established fact, the petitioners failed to make out a case for setting aside the proceedings of June 11, 2019, and failed, even up till today, to file counter affidavit.”

    The judge dismissed the application for being unmeritorious.

    Read also: Presidential election dispute: Tribunal to hear Atiku’s, PDP’s fresh motion July 1

    In the motion, which the tribunal deemed as unopposed by the petitioners, the APC is praying the tribunal to dismiss the petition or, alternatively, strike out several paragraphs that were not supported by facts and laws.

    APC also prayed the tribunal to remove 10 states from the list of those Atiku alleged electoral malpractices took place in the February 23 presidential election on the grounds that the petitioners failed to disclose the specific polling units where the alleged infraction allegedly took place, thereby “making their claims imprecise, nebulous and vague”.

    The ruling party also asked the tribunal to strike out paragraphs in the petition, where allegations of act of thuggery, arrest, intimidation and conversion were made against Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo, the Army, the police and several other individuals who were not joined as defendants in their petition.

    It also applied that the claim by Atiku and the PDP that President Buhari was not educationally qualified to stand for the presidential election be expunged from their petition because it is a pre-election matter, which the tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon.

    Also, the APC urged the tribunal to strike out the petition on the grounds that it failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of paragraphs 4 and 7 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 and Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The party similarly faulted the petition “for being incompetent and in gross violation of sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act”.

    It prayed the tribunal that the petition be struck out together with the lists of documents and witnesses to be relied upon by the petitioners.

    Also yesterday, the tribunal adopted the schedule of proceedings agreed by parties on Monday, and adjourned till today for the commencement of the hearing session during which the petitioners are expected to call their first set of witnesses.

    In announcing the adoption of the schedule, as agreed by lawyers to the parties, Justice Garba said: “You will recall that on Monday you indicated that trial should begin on Thursday.

    “In line with that, the pre-hearing session for this petition will have to end today (Wednesday) to enable us to commence trial in respect of this petition from July 4.

    “It is on that basis that I will now present the report of the pre-hearing session.

    “The court hereby adopts the terms of agreements as the directive that will guide the conduct of the proceedings in respect of the petition but subject to modification, as allowed under paragraph 18 (10) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act.”

    By the agreed schedule of proceedings, as presented to the tribunal on Monday by petitioners’ lead lawyer Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), the petitioners have 10 days to call all their witnesses while each of the three respondents is entitled to six days.

    The evidence-in-chief of those the lawyers described as “ordinary witnesses” will take five minutes, while such witnesses would be cross-examined for 10 minutes.

    For “expert/subpoenaed witnesses,” the evidence-in-chief shall last 10 minutes for each witness, while cross-examination shall be for take 20 minutes.

    The tribunal agreed to three minutes each for re-examination of all categories of witnesses.

    Objection to documents are to be indicated at the point of tendering, and the address on it will be reserved till final address but will be isolated from the main address.

    Parties are also to prepare the schedule of documents to be tendered, file them and exchange with lawyers representing various parties.

    Respondents to the petition will file their final address within seven days of close of evidence, while the petitioners are to file their reply-final addresses within five days of being served with the respondents’ final addresses.

    The respondents will have three days of being served with petitioners’ final address, file their replies on point of law if need be.

    The tribunal also said proceedings shall begin, each day, at 9.30 a.m and end at 4 p.m (Monday to Friday) with one hour break between 1 p.m and 2 p.m.

     

  • Breaking: Tribunal rejects PDP, Atiku’s request to re-argue APC’s objection to petition

    The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) has rejected the request by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the last presidential election, Atiku Abubakar for opportunity to re-argue a motion by the All Progressives Congress (APC), seeking the dismissal of the petition.

    The tribunal had on June 11, 2019 ruled that the petitioners – PDP and Atiku had no response to the motion by the APC, on the grounds that they failed to file a counter-affidavit.

    It was that ruling that the petitioners prayed the court to set aside and allow them formally respond to the motion, a request the tribunal rejected in a ruling on Wednesday.

    Read Also: Atiku sues Buhari’s aide Onnochie for N2.5bn

    The tribunal also adopted the schedule of proceedings agreed by parties on Monday, and adjourned till Thursday for the commencement of formal trial – hearing of the petition.

    The petitioners are expected to call their first set of witnesses on Thursday.

     

    Details shortly.

     

  • Presidential election dispute: Atiku, PDP get 10 days to call 400 witnesses

    THE Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) has allocated 10 days to the petitioners – Atiku Abubakar and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) – to call the 400 witnesses they plan to call to prove their case.

    The PDP and its candidate in the last presidential election are, by their petition, challenging the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Party (APC).

    Respondents to the petition – the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Buhari and the APC – have equally been allocated six days each to call their witnesses.

    The allocation of days to parties in the case was agreed yesterday at the tribunal’s pre-hearing session where the scheduling of the hearing process was equally agreed.

    At the beginning of yesterday’s proceedings, the petitioner’s lead lawyer Livy Uzoukwu said Atiku and the PDP planned to call 400 witnesses to prove their case.

    Uzoukwu said although the petitioners proposed 400 witnesses, they would make do with the number they could call within the period prescribed by law.

    At that point, the tribunal’s chairman Justice Mohammed Garba said the law, Paragraph 16(3) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010, provides 14 days for the petitioners to conduct its case.

    Following the information from the tribunal’s chairman, lawyers representing all the parties, sought a break of about 30 minutes to work out how to proceed during the hearing of the petition.

    When proceedings resumed later, Uzoukwu said: “We have agreed that instead of the 14 days that we have to call our witnesses, we will take 10.

    “The respondents have agreed to cut their 10 days to six days for each of them. Evidence-in-chief for what we call ‘ordinary witnesses’ will take five minutes.

    “Cross-examination of such ordinary witnesses will take 10 minutes; evidence-in-chief of expert/subpoenaed witnesses, 10 minutes; cross-examination of same category of witnesses, 20 minutes and re-examination of all witnesses, three minutes each.

    “Objection to documents will be indicated at the point of tendering and the address on it will be reserved till final address but will be isolated from the main address.

    Read Also: Atiku sues Buhari’s aide Onnochie for N2.5bn

    “Parties are to prepare the schedule of documents to be tendered, file them and exchange them among themselves.”

    Uzoukwu also told the tribunal that it was agreed that the respondents should file their final address within seven days of close of evidence, while the petitioners should file their final reply addresses within five days after they have been served with the respondents’ final addresses.

    The petitioners’ lawyer added that it was also agreed that the respondents should, within three days of being served with petitioners’ final address, file their replies on point of law, where necessary.

    INEC’s lawyer Yunus Ustaz (SAN) noted that “proper foundation” must be laid for documents for which parties have not agreed on their admission.

    Lawyers to President Buhari and the APC, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Charles Edosomwan (SAN) confirmed that what Uzoukwu said was an actual reflection of what all the parties agreed to.

    Olanipekun said it was suggested that during the hearing session, proceedings should start at 9.30 a.m and end at 4 p.m, with an hour break between 1 p.m and 2 p.m.

    He said parties equally agreed that trial/hearing session should begin on Thursday.

    Justice Garba averred that the beginning of the hearing session would be dependent on outcome of the proceedings scheduled for Wednesday.

    The tribunal scheduled ruling for Wednesday in an application by the petitioners, requesting that a motion filed by the APC to strike out of their petition, be heard afresh.

    Atiku and the PDP claimed that they were not heard by the tribunal and had no opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and written address in opposition to the motion, when it was heard by the tribunal on June 11.

    They added: “The petitioners/applicants desire to be heard in response to the third respondent’s motion filed on May 15, 2019, seeking to strike out the petition.”

    Lawyers to the respondents, who opposed the application, argued that the petitioners, having failed to file any response to APC’s application within the time allowed by law, could no longer complain.

    INEC, President Buhari and the APC argued that the fresh application by the petitioners was an abuse of court process, on the grounds that the petitioners had appealed, at the Supreme Court, the June 11 ruling of the tribunal, which they sought to be set aside by the tribunal.

    They further argued that the motion by the APC, having been heard and reserved for ruling, the petitioners had lost the right to be heard on the issue again.

    In the motion, which the petitioners are seeking to be heard afresh, the APC wants the tribunal to dismiss the petition or, alternatively, strike out several paragraphs that were not supported by facts and laws.

    APC also wants the tribunal to remove 10 states from the list of states where Atiku alleged that electoral malpractices took place in the February 23 presidential election on the grounds that the petitioners failed to disclose the specific polling units where the alleged infractions, which they claimed, took place.

    The party said the PDP and its candidate were thereby “making their claims imprecise, nebulous and vague”.

    It also asked the tribunal to strike out paragraphs in the petition, where allegations of act of thuggery, arrest, intimidation and conversion were made against Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo, the Army, the police and several other individuals who were not joined as defendants in their petition.

    The APC equally applied that the claim by Atiku and the PDP that President Buhari was not educationally qualified to stand for the presidential election be expunged from their petition because it is a pre-election matter which the tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon.

    Also, the ruling party urged the tribunal to strike out the petition on the grounds that it failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of paragraphs 4 and 7 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 and Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The APC similarly faulted the petition “for being incompetent and in gross violation of sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act”.

    It urged the tribunal to strike out the petition together with the list of documents and list of witnesses to be relied upon by the petitioners.

     

     

  • Atiku sues Buhari’s aide Lauretta Onnochie for N2.5bn

    The Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last general elections, Atiku Abubakar, has sued the Special Assistant on Social Media to President Muhammadu Buhari,  Lauretta Onochie, for her alleged libelous tweet via her twitter handle on May 7, 2019.

    In the suit filed on June 26, 2019 before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) by his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Atiku claimed Onochie alleged in her post, that he was on the watch list of security operatives in the United Arab Emirates and had travelled to shop for terrorists in the Middle East.

    In a supporting affidavit, Atiku, a former Vice President, denied the allegation contained in the said tweet and stated that the tweet was “politically orchestrated” “solely to cause maximum damage” to his “high reputation.”

    Atiku stated that: “To say that the claimant is shopping for terrorists knowing same to be untrue and without any foundation is not only dishonest and reckless, but is calculated and politically designed to instigate security agents against him not only in the UAE, but across the world,” he stated in his statement of claim accompanying the suit.

    In a statement of claim, Atiku said he had in a May 14, 2019 letter, demanded an apology, retraction and payment of N500m compensation from Onochie “to assuage” the damage allegedly caused him by her social media post.

    Atiku stated that even when he threatened to sue her should she fail to accede to the demand within 48 hours, Onochie was unmoved by his demand letter, Atiku noted that rather than show “remorse by retracting her earlier publication”, she further, on May 20, made “another derogatory publication and also published same globally online in the social and other print media” against his person.

    He said sometimes in May this year, he had  embarked on a foreign trip to the UAE as he had done over the years, and while on the said trip, Onochie on  May 7, 2019, wrote, through her twitter handle:

    “Atiku on UAE watchlist- Security sources Security operatives in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are keeping a close tab on a former Nigerian Vice Pres Atiku Abubakar who has been in the Middle East nation for several weeks now What is he doing there? Me: Shopping for Terrorists?”

    Read Also: On Atiku, Soyinka and other matters

    The claimant said “the defamatory publication” was also published by several newspapers nationwide and on several social media news.

    He denied the allegations contained in the said publication which he described as “a figment of the imagination of the defendant”, but said it portrayed him “as an evil man, mentor of terrorists, someone who has links with terrorists, and a person who is interested in destabilising the peace and unity of Nigeria.

    “The publication also portrayed the claimant as a security threat and terrorist to right thinking members of the public and the society at large.

    “The odious publication has clearly rubbished the claimant’s image and reputation. It has caused him national and international backlash and embarrassment and has done incalculable damage to him.

    “He has thereby been subjected to the shame and infamy of being viewed by members of the public as not only corrupt, but as a terrorist and sponsor of terrorism.”

    Atiku claimed that following the publication, he received numerous telephone calls, emails, visits, letters and private social media chats by his family members, friends, political and business associates, and international statesmen and women, confirming “the alarm and serious concerns generated by the defendant’s false publication.”

    The claimant said he would tender the call logs showing the text messages, and calls received by him in the aftermath of Onochie’s post.

    He described “the entire opprobrious and denigrating story” as “most misleading, baseless, false, malicious and totally bereft of any foundation howsoever”.

    He noted that the “inference and grave conclusions” contained in the postwere “politically orchestrated” and “invented by the defendant and others of her ilk, solely to cause maximum damage to the high reputation of the claimant, who is currently before the Election Petition Tribunal against her employer and boss, President Muhammadu Buhari, challenging the latter’s purported victory in the last presidential election.”

    The claimant said contrary to the said “derogatory, disparaging, mendacious and unrestrained defamatory statement, as published in various print, electronic and online media platforms” he had “never been on the security watch list of the UAE, or any other country, for that matter.

    “He has neither ever been denied entry into, interrogated, nor been declared wanted by the UAE Authorities, or any of its security agencies.

    “That Claimant was at the time of the said publication in the UAE and was never accosted by any security agencies over the said frivolous and baseless allegations.”

    Atiku is praying for among others, a declaration that the publications made by Onochie via her social media accounts on May 7, and May 20, 2019, concerning and touching on his “are utterly false, baseless, unfounded and defamatory of the Claimant, and injurious to his reputation.”

    He wants the court to direct the defendant to pay him N2,500,000,000,000 “representing general, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages over the untold embarrassment, derision, public ridicule, odium, obloquy, marital disharmony,  mental agony and psychological trauma which the defendant’s publications have caused the claimant.”

    Atiku wants the court to compel the defendant to retract the publication and offer an apology to him “for the said offensive twitter and facebook publications on the same platforms, also to be published in three national newspapers with wide circulation within the country and also broadcast on AIT, Channels and NTA television stations.”

    The claimant antsan order of perpetual injunction restraining her whether by herself, her servants, agents, privies, assigns, friends and /or  representatives, or otherwise howsoever, from further posting such “offensive and libelous material or any other form of defamatory statements against his person.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Presidential election dispute: Tribunal to hear Atiku’s, PDP’s fresh motion July 1

    PROCEEDINGS ended unexpectedly on Wednesday at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) due to the request by a lawyer to Atiku Abubakar and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chris Uche (SAN) for an adjournment to enable his clients react to the responses filed against a fresh motion by Atiku and the PDP.

    Atiku and his party are challenging the outcome of the last presidential election at the tribunal. Although they came second behind President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC), they claimed to have won based on some results they gleaned from a central server purportedly utilised by the electoral body, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to transmit the result of the election.

    The PEPT, in a ruling on June 24, declined the petitioners’ request to be allowed access to the supposed server, which existence INEC has denied. The tribunal adjourned till June 26 for further pre-hearing session.

    At the resumption of proceedings yesterday, the petitioners were expected to pursue their petition, but their lawyer took all by surprise when he prayed the tribunal for an adjournment to enable them file replies-on-point-of-law to the respondents’ replies to the petitioners’fresh motion seeking to quash the proceedings conducted on June 11 by the tribunal.

    Lawyers to the the respondents – INEC, Buhari and APC – Yunus Usman (SAN), Yusuf Ali (SAN) and Lateef Fagbemi did not object to Uche’s request.

    But Uche urged the tribunal to conduct other pre-hearings related to the petition rather than wasting the day, a request respondents’ lawyers objected to.

    Usman, Ali and Fagbemi said they could only concede should the petitioners withdraw their fresh motion or reply orally, a suggestion Uche rejected and insisted on filing replies to the respondents’ responses.

    Ruling, PEPT’s Chairman, Justice Mohammed Garba said the tribunal would prefer to conclude the hearing of all pending applications/motions before delving into other issues related to the petition.

    Justice Garba adjourned till July 1 for the hearing of the fresh motion by the petitioners and the consideration of any other pre-hearing issues.

    In the fresh motion filed on June 18, Atku and the PDP  prayed the tribunal to set aside its proceedings of June 11 during which it accepted as undefended, an application filed by the APC, in which the party sought to strike out the petition because it was defective.

    Read Also: PDP, Atiku lose battle to access INEC’s server

    In a ruling on June 11, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to file the required counter-affidavit against the application by the APC and recorded the application as unchallenged.

    It is that ruling that Atiku and the PDP, by their fresh motion, want the tribunal to set aside, a request the respondents have also opposed with their various counter applications, some of which Uche said, were served on him late, and in respect of which he sought an adjournment to enable his team reply.

    In the application accepted by the tribunal as undefended, the APC wants the tribunal to dismiss the petition by Atiku and the PDP, or alternatively, strike out several paragraphs that were not supported by facts and laws.

    APC also wants  the tribunal to remove 10 states from the list of states Atiku alleged electoral malpractices took place in the February 23 Presidential Election because the petitioners failed to disclose the specific polling units where the alleged infraction, which they claimed, took place, thereby “making their claims imprecise, nebulous and vague”.

    The APC also asked the tribunal to strike out paragraphs in the petition, where allegations of thuggery, arrest, intimidation and conversion were made against Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, the Nigerian Army, the Nigerian Police and individuals who were not joined as defendants in their petition.

    The APC also applied that the claim by Atiku and the PDP that President Buhari was not educationally qualified to stand for the presidential election be expunged from their petition because it is a pre-election matter, which the tribunal has no jurisdiction for.

    Also, the APC urged the tribunal to strike out the petition because it failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of paragraphs 4 and 7 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 and Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The APC similarly faulted the petition “for being incompetent and in gross violation of sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act” and, therefore, urged that the petition be struck out with the lists of documents and witnesses to be relied upon by the petitioners.

    Urging the tribunal to reject the fresh motion, INEC, Buhari and the APC argued that it was an abuse of court process, because the petitioners had appealed, at the Supreme Court, the tribunal’s June 11 ruling, which they  sought the tribunal to set aside.

  • Atiku: our request to inspect server not rejected by PEPT

    The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the February 23 presidential election Atiku Abubakar on Tuesday insisted that his request to inspect the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) central server was not rejected by the tribunal.

    The former vice president the position taken by the Presidency on the ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) he and his party filed at the tribunal.

    On Monday, the PEPT turned down the request by Atiku and the PDP to be allowed to inspect the said INEC server, a ruling the Presidency described the Presidency described as justice over propaganda.

    In a statement by the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Mallam Garba Shehu, the Presidency hailed the PEPT verdict.

    Shehu had hailed the ruling as a “landmark” and went on to say that “the existence of a purported server is being contested and if a purported inspection had been allowed at this stage, it would have amounted to the determination that it indeed existed even when its existence is being contested”.

    Read Also: I’ve no plans to protest over INEC server, says Atiku

    Responding to Shehu’s statement through his spokesman, Paul Ibe, the PDP presidential candidate insisted that he did not only win the February 23 election but that the Muhammadu Buhari administration lacked the requisite executive temperament and capacity as would be established in the course of time.

    Ibe, in a statement, attempted to educate Shehu on the import of the tribunal ruling, insisting that the request by Atiku Abubakar and PDP to inspect the INEC server was not rejected.

    He said: “What the honourable tribunal said is that it is still at preliminary stages and the main case has not begun and that the matter of granting access to inspect the INEC server is not relevant to the preliminary stages. It is a matter to be adjudicated upon when the case proper is being heard.”

    Ibe said it was too early in the day for the Presidency to jubilate, arguing that the opposition party has enough facts to prove that the results of the February 23 election were transmitted electronically into INEC’s central server.

    He said: “In their rush to claim a pyrrhic victory, the Buhari administration missed out the fact that the 2019 budget has multiple line items for procurement, maintenance and service of the server they claim does not exist.

    “Furthermore, the statement tried to spin the recent verdict on the election passed by the EU election observers. For the avoidance of doubt, what the EU report said is that the 2019 elections had significant defects and fell short of the 2019 elections.

    “It should be noted that one of the issues they raised is the attempt to muzzle not just the media, but more importantly, the judiciary.

    “In the light of this, we remind those who are gloating in their ignorance that ‘he who laughs last, laughs best’.

    “The last has not been heard of this matter and we eagerly anticipate the actual ruling of the tribunal when the case proper begins.”

  • PDP, Atiku lose battle to access INEC’s server

    The  Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) has rejected the request by Atiku Abubakar and his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), for permission to inspect a supposed central server, which they claim the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) used to transmit electronically results of the last presidential election.

    They have vowed to appeal the verdict.

    In a unanimous ruling on Monday, a five-man panel of the tribunal, led by Justice Mohammed Garba, dismissed the application filed by Atiku and the PDP, to that effect.

    The tribunal said since parties to the petition were disputing the existence or otherwise of an INEC central server, it was wrong for it to grant the petitioners’ request to inspect a server, whose existence, usage or otherwise was being disputed by parties.

    It noted that by averments contained in processes filed by parties, they had joined issues on whether or not there was a central server and whether or not INEC deployed it for the election.

    The tribunal said granting the petitioners’ request to inspect a server, which the supposed owner said did not exist, will amount to the tribunal agreeing that a server actually exists.

    It said the existence of a server, which forms a substantial part of the petition filed by Atiku and the PDP, should be determined at the hearing of the main petition.

    Justice Garba, who gave the lead ruling, noted that “based on the facts deposed to in the pleadings in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the petition, which is to the effect that the election results were electronically transmitted to the 1st respondent’s server, in addition to the accreditation information from the smart card readers used for accreditation use for the election.

    “And the respondents, having joined issues with the petitioners in respect of the same data, said to have been transmitted to the 1st respondent’s server, this court has to be circumspect and be minded, to peruse the petition as well as the respondents’ replies thereto, in order to confirm whether, in fact, parties have truly joined issues on the existence and use of a central server.

    “There are, in paragraphs 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the petitioners’ petition, facts that for the said election, held on the 23rd of February 2019, the 1st respondent deployed smart card readers in accreditation as well as transmit election results directly from the polling units to the central server.

    “But, the 1st respondents, in paragraph 6 of its reply, has totally denied the existence and use of electronic transmission of results in the presidential election of 2019.”

    Justice Garba, after a careful analysis of averments in the processes filed by parties, held that averments in the processes filed by parties “have clearly and unequivocally shown that parties have, indeed, joined issues on the existence or otherwise of a central server and whether the results of the presidential election held on the 23rd of February 2019 was electronically transmitted

    “Now, given the germane nature of this issue, which proof can only emerge at the hearing of the substantive petition, the question that comes to the fore is whether it will be rational; whether it will be judicious and to meet the end of justice, in accordance with the law, that the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners/applicants to grant access to what they call central server, in respect of which parties have joined issues.

    Read Also: ‘Igbo not worried about Atiku’s six-year plan’

    “However, from the pleadings before us, I am of the view that the averments in the petition and the respondents’ reply thereto, with regard to the existence of a central server and whether there was electronic transmission of the results of the presidential election, held on the 23rd of February 2019 and which issues have, admittedly been joined, substantially by parties, it is no doubt out of place and will not be expedient that this court should grant the prayers contained in the application.

    “In other words, if the court grants the prayers sought in this application,it would have delved into and resolved the substantially issues aforementioned as regard the existence of a server and the electronic transmission of the election results, which scenario would be unpalatable and create the impression that this court has indeed, confirmed that there is a central server into which the result of the presidential election conducted on February 23, 2019 was transmitted and stored by the 1st respondent.”

    Justice Garba said the court should be careful, while determining preliminary issues, and should avoid making declaration and observation that could touch or prejudging the substantial issue.

    He added that the court cannot, in determining preliminary issued, determine the substantial issues.

    Justice Garba said: “I decline to grant the reliefs sought in the application. The application filed on May 8 is hereby refused and dismissed.”

    Atiku and the PDP, in their petition before the tribunal, claimed that they won the election based on results they downloaded from the said INEC central server, which INEC has consistently denied its existence.

    INEC has consistently denied that it deployed any server for the transmission of the election results and that the extant Electoral Act and Electoral Guidelines do not allow electronic transmission of election results.

    In the application, Atiku and PDP had prayed the tribunal for an order:

    • granting access or the court’s supervised access and inspection by the petitioners in the presence of the 1st and 2nd respondents, if they so desire, of the 1st respondent’s server, wherein information are recorded and stored in data packages relating to the accreditation of voters and transmission of results from the presidential election, the subject matter of the petition;
    • directing the 1st respondent’s Chief National Electoral Commissioner and /other officers to grant the petitioners access to the said data base in the 1st respondent’s central server;
    • granting leave to the petitioners to inspect and obtain certified true copies (CTC) of smart card readers accreditation data from the smart card readers used for the said election as stored in the 1st respondent’s server; and
    • an order granting leave to the petitioners to file the report of the inspection and analysis thereof at the trial.

    The tribunal, in an earlier ruling. granted the 2nd respondent (President Muhammad Buhari) the permission to amen his reply to the petition by Atiku and the PDP by including his lawyer’s name, address and national Identification number.

    The tribunal overruled the petitioners’ objection to the amendment sought by Buhari, on the grounds that the amendment was not substantial enough to alter the nature of the case.

    It agreed with Buhari’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), that the petitioners, having in the past obtained the tribunal’s permission to serve documents on Buhari through the office of the All Progressives Congress (APC),it cannot object to the inclusion of the 2nd respondents lawyer’s address.

    The tribunal reserved till a later date ruling on the petitioners’ preliminary objection to Buhari’s reply to their petition.

    The tribunal said since the Preliminary objection affected the petition, it was better to determine it at the stage of determining the petition.

    Reacting to the tribunal’s rejection of therequest to inspect server, two senior lawyers from the petitioners’ legal team, Chris Uche (SAN) and Mike Ozekhome (SAN) said their client will appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Lawyer to INEC, Yunus Usman (SAN) said he as comfortable with the tribunal’s decision and challenged the petitioners to prove their case at the hearing of the petition.

    Uche said: “ you know the nation was looking forward to this ruling. It is one that is very pivotal to this matter. You know the Electoral Act empowers the court and the tribunals to grant access, such as this, to petitioners in order to institute andmaitain apetition andthatisallwe are asking.

    “But the court has ruled otherwise. Definitely, this is a matter that we want to take higher to the Supreme Court to challenge this ruling, because we strongly feel that Section 151 of the Electoral Act entitles us to have access to this materials.

    “We are not asking the court to decide whether there is a server or not. So, the aspect of the court prejudging any issue does not arise at all.

    What we asked was for the court to allow us access to the materials used for the election. INEC is a public institution, funded by public finance. Definitely, we are going to challenge the decision of the court today.

    Ozekhome claimed that INEC chairman and some other senior INEC officials, including Mike Igini (Akwa-Ibom) maintained that INEC would adopt electronic means and not manual in transmitting the results.

    “What the court has said today is that you do not have the right under Section 15 of the Electoral Act to maintain your petition. We did not ask for details. all we asked as for access to the result of the election.

    “Meanwhile, one of their spokesmen had written a petition to the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) that the petitioners have hacked into their server. The question is which server?

    “Like what my learned brother, Chris Uche (SAN) has said, we are appealing against this decision, because it is like tying your hands behind your back and expecting you to fight.

    “We need to know what is in the central server. We want to find out what is there that they are hiding.

    Usman said: “We are satisfied. The court has said it cannot delve into those issues raised by the petitioners in its application when parties have joined issues on them in the substantive petition.

    “These are the issues to be tried. you can try the by piecemeal. “

    To the Presidency, yesterday’s rejection of the request by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate at the February 23 Presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar to inspect the Independent National Electoral Commission’s server is justice over propaganda.

    The election tribunal turned down the opposition party’s request to inspect the server.

    A statement by the Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, reads “In a landmark ruling by the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT), a desperate attempt by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to overreach judicial process was overwhelmingly rejected by a unanimous decision and the long standing principle of law has once again been re-enacted.

    “An attempt to cause the determination of an issue that constitutes the fulcrum of contention between the parties, at an interlocutory stage, has again been rejected by the tribunal.

    “What this means is that Justice and fair hearing through due contest by the parties of a major issue for determination remains sacrosanct and remains considerable by the tribunal upon according parties just and fair hearing and not the other way round.

    “The election petitions tribunal unanimously rejected the PDP’s request to inspect a server which existence is being disputed.

    “The existence of a purported server is being contested and if a purported inspection had been allowed at this stage, it would have amounted to the determination that it indeed existed even when its existence is being contested.

    “The electoral law prescribes manual transmission of results only and this was what the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did, in obedience to the law as witnessed by real electoral observers.

    ‘YIAGA Africa deployed 3906 real individuals to run a parallel tabulation which returned the same results the INEC announced.” he added

    Last week, he said, the final reports of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute (IRI/NDI) electoral observer mission made clear that the results of the election reflected the votes cast.

    According to him, President Muhammadu Buhari won with a majority of four million votes and because only real votes matter, INEC announced him as the winner of the 2019 presidential  election.

  • Atiku: I’ve no plan to protest over INEC server

    There is no plan to lead a protest should the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) rule against my bid to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to grant him access to information on the Commission’s central server, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, said on Sunday.

    Atiku, who was the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the February 23 presidential election, debunked reports that he was planning to lead a protest should his request be declined by the panel.

    The former vice president Atiku his party are challenging President Muhammadu Buhari victory of at the tribunal where they have prayed the tribunal to compel INEC to grant them access to information relating to the presidential election on the Commission’s central server.

    The electoral umpire told the tribunal on June 13 that it has no server for Atiku and the PDP to inspect.

    Read Also: June 12: Threshold in our national life – Atiku

    In a statement by his media adviser, Paul Ibe, the PDP candidate yesterday described the report in circulation to that effect as the handiwork of mischief makers.

    According to Atiku, the said report was meant to mar his “spotless pro-democratic record”, with the view to laying the groundwork on false charges against him.

    The statement reads: “Our attention has been drawn to a statement circulating in a section of the media, to the effect that Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of PDP in the 2019 presidential election and Vice President of Nigeria, 1999-2007, plans to lead a street protest in the event that the election petition tribunal rules against him and his party on the issue of a server for the Independent National Electoral Commission.

    “I wish to emphatically state that such a statement did not emanate from Atiku Abubakar or his privies. It is the work of mischief makers who want to mar his spotless pro-democratic record and lay the ground work for their threatened actions against him on false charges of being a threat to national security.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, Atiku Abubakar believes in the Rule of Law and in the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In his almost four decades in politics, he has never taken action or spoken words against democracy and will not start now.

    “Atiku Abubakar and his team have confidence in God and thus call on those bent on mischief to have the fear of God and retrace their steps.

    “Democracy has come to stay in Nigeria. The culture of fear being created now cannot rein in our democracy. Nigeria and Nigerians have a consistent history of outlasting tyranny and will continue to do so by the grace of God.”

     

  • I’ve no plans to protest over INEC server, says Atiku

    The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the February 23 presidential election, Atiku Abubakar, has debunked media reports indicating he planned to lead a protest should the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal rule against his bid to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to grant him access to information on the Commission’s central server.

    Atiku and the PDP are challenging the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari at the Tribunal where they have prayed the tribunal to compel INEC to grant them access to information relating to the presidential election on the Commission’s central server.

    In a statement Sunday by his media adviser, Paul Ibe, the PDP candidate described statements in circulation to that effect as the handiwork of mischief makers.

    According to Atiku, the said statement was meant to mar Atiku Abubakar’s “spotless pro-democratic record”, with the view to laying the groundwork on false charges against him.

    The statement said: “Our attention has been drawn to a statement circulating in a section of the media, to the effect that Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of PDP in the 2019 presidential election and Vice President of Nigeria, 1999-2007, plans to lead a street protest in the event that the election petition tribunal rules against him and his party on the issue of a server for the Independent National Electoral Commission.

    Read Also: Atiku seeks tribunal’s permission to inspect INEC’s server

    “I wish to emphatically state that such a statement did not emanate from Atiku Abubakar or his privies.

    “It is the work of mischief makers who want to mar his spotless pro-democratic record and lay the ground work for their threatened actions against him on false charges of being a threat to national security.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, Atiku Abubakar believes in the Rule of Law and in the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In his almost four decades in politics, he has never taken action or spoken words against democracy and will not start now.

    “Atiku Abubakar and his team have confidence in God and thus call on those bent on mischief to have the fear of God and retrace their steps.

    “Democracy has come to stay in Nigeria. The culture of fear being created now cannot rein in our democracy. Nigeria and Nigerians have a consistent history of outlasting tyranny and will continue to do so by the grace of God”.

     

  • PDP blames Buhari, APC for widespread despondency

    The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has heaped the blame for the prevailing widespread despondency, depression and misery in the country on President Muhammadu Buhari and the governing All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Urging Nigerians to uphold and support one another in love at these trying times, the party said there was urgent need to check the rising social degeneration in the nation, particularly suicide.

    In a statement Sunday by the spokesman for the PDP, Kola Ologbondiyan, the main opposition party said the sad turn of events was worsened by the “rigging” of the 2019 presidential  election.

    It described as a national tragedy, the rising spate of suicides, slavery mission abroad, divorces, child abandonment and other social degeneration occasioned by the worsening economic hardship, poverty, hunger and rising insecurity under the “incompetent, corrupt, divisive and manipulative” APC administration.

    Read Also: PDP accuses Tinubu of attacking party

    The main opposition party further lamented that the prevailing social ills was a direct response to bad governance, stressing that the citizens are overwhelmed by gloom.

    It stated that Nigerians have lost hope, particularly after their majority vote for a new, purposeful and result-oriented President in the PDP candidate, Atiku Abubakar, was subverted with “brazen impunity”.

    The statement said, “In the last few months, the news media has been awash with horrible reports of teenage suicide in our country.

    “Banditry, insurgency, marauding, bloodletting and kidnapping with unmentionable ransoms, have almost become daily occurrences. Our citizenry is now battling with the worst kind of siege mentality.

    “Constitutional violations, human rights abuses, arbitrary arrests, extra-judicial killings, assault on perceived dissenting voices and attempt at annexation of our institutions of democracy, particularly the judiciary, signposts a nation in dire strait.

    “Misery has set in. This is evident in the shrinking of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 2.1percent in the first quarter of 2019.

    “It is saddening that at the time Nigerians ought to be celebrating; they are rather forlorn, committing suicide and exiting the country in droves.

    “Most Nigerians have become downhearted in the face of an administration that wrecked our once robust economy and divided our people; in the face of worsening joblessness, piling bills, hunger and diseases; in the face of incompetence, lies, and unfulfilled promises of free homes, monthly allowance to unemployed youth and the poor, bringing the naira to the same value as the US Dollar, creating of five million new jobs, ending of insurgency in three months and myriad of other false promises.

    “Instead, what our nation has witnessed is an official entrenchment and elevation of incompetence, deceit, propaganda, failure and cabal mentality on the corridors of power; a situation where the only achievement is the foisting of economic recession and mortgaging of the future of our nation with the accumulation of N24.39 trillion debt, with no tangible project to show.

    “It is instructive to state that the President Muhammadu Buhari-led APC administration has obstinately refused to allow any scrutiny of its books, knowing that they are catalogues of corruption, treasury looting, violations, impunity and acts that have brought our nation to its knees”.

    The party however called on Nigerians not to despair but stand firm in their collective determination to retrieve the “stolen” presidential mandate at the tribunal.

    That, the PDP said, was the only way Nigerians can have an administration that truly cares for them and which has the competence to return the nation on the deserved path of peace, national cohesion and economic prosperity”.