President Muhammadu Buhari and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) again floored the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate Atiku Abubakar at the tribunal on Thursday.
Buhari and the APC defeated them in the February 23 election and won again when the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) upheld their submissions and dismissed the petition.
The five Justices of the PEPC’s panel were unanimous in their conclusion that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by the law.
The court, which held that Atiku and his party failed to establish their claims, resolved the five issues, identified for determination, against the petitioners.
Before delivering the judgment, the court gave eight rulings on preliminary applications and motions heard but in respect of which decisions were reserved until judgment day
Presiding Justice Mohammed Garba read the lead rulings and judgment. The proceedings lasted about eight hours.
The first two issues resolved were in relation to the petitioners’ claim that the 2nd defendant did not possess the necessary qualification to have contested the election, and that he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in an affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his election.
Justice Garba, in resolving the issues against the petitioners noted that they failed to prove that Buhari was not educated up to school certificate level as required under Section 138 of the Constitution.
The judge faulted the petitioners’ claim that Buhari gave false information in the affidavit containing personal information, which he submitted to INEC before the election.
Justice Garba held that because Buhari did not attach his certificate to the Form CF001 and the affidavit he submitted to INEC did not imply that he did not possess such documents as claimed by the petitioners.
He noted that it was a settled issue that a candidate is not required to attach his certificate to Form CF001 for the INEC for the electoral body to be satisfied about his qualification.
The judge added that the presentation of certificates or attaching them to Form CF001 is not a requirement of the Constitution, but that the law only required a candidate to swear to an affidavit, detailing his personal information, including academic qualifications.
On Buhari’s qualification, Justice Garba held that from the documents tendered by the petitoners, the President, as against their claims, was “eminently” qualified to stand for the election.
He further held that, “in fact, Buhari was more than qualified as he surpassed the required qualification”.
The judge, who noted that petitioners insinuated that officers cadets is not a qualification, held that “there is evidence before this court to show that the 2nd respondent went to military training after his secondary school education.”
He faulted the petitoners’ claim that the statement by the Secretary, Military Board, Brig.- Gen. Olajide Olaleye which is published in a newspaper report supported their claim that Buhari had no secondary school certificate.
While the judge noted that it was wrong for the petitioners not to have called Gen. Olaleye and other makers of the documents they tendered, he held that the report on the Military Board’s statement did not support the petitioner’s position.
“The petitioners made the commission of a crime the cornerstone of issues one and two. The counsel to the petitioners only tendered documents from the bar, without calling evidence and makers of those documents.
“The petitioners did not call Brig.- Gen. Olajide Olayeye. They have a duty to show that the affidavit submitted to INEC by the 2nd respondent contained false information of fundamental nature, as claimed,” he said.
The judge said, even if the court was to consider the documents, which he had said the petitioners merely dumped on the court, “the documents did not support the petitioners.”
He noted that what Olaleye said, from the evidence supplied by the petitioners, was that the Nigeria Army did not have the original of Buhari’s school certificates, but a certified true copy.
The statement, he added, also showed that Buhari applied to join the Army on October 18, 1961 as a student of Form Six, and that Buhari’s Form199A kept with the Nigerian Army showed that he passed English, Geography, History, Hausa and English Literature.
The judge said: “This statement apparently, clearly and unequivocally showed that the 2nd respondent attended secondary school and passed the WASC.
“The reasonable inference is that he (the 2nd respondent) submitted his certificate on joining the Army, from where the Army extracted the information in Form199A. If the Army admits that it has records that 2nd respondent submitted result of WASC, from where it got the information contained in Form 199A, where them lies the falsity of the information contained in the affidavit submitted to INEC?”
After further analysis of the petitioners evidence, including Buhari’s curriculum vitae, which they tendered, Justice Garba said: “In my view, the CV contains impressive credentials, which showed that the 2nd respondent was eminently qualified.
“The 2nd respondent has more than secondary school certificate, having attended further courses. It’s not that the 2nd defendant is not only qualified, he is eminently qualified, going by the evidence submitted by the petitioners.”
Justice Garba, who proceeded to discountenance all the petitioners’ submissions about the 2nd respondent’s non-submission of certificate to INEC, held that none of the fact pleaded by them were proved as required by law.
On the petitioners claim that the variation in Buhari’s first name supported their claim that he was not truthful about his qualification, the judge said there was nothing to the variation since the petitioners could not establish that the person described in the documents as either Mohammed or Muhammadu were not one and the same.
The judge added: “I am also of the firm view that the petitioners have failed to prove that the 2nd respondent was not qualified and that he submitted affidavit containing false information to INEC(1st respondent).
“After a critical evaluation of all evidence in this petition, I have come to the view that issues 1 and 2 are resolved against the petitioners.
The third issue was on whether or not Buhari was duly elected by majority of lawful votes, which the court also resolved against the petitioners on the groundsthat the failed to prove their case in this regard.
The judge held that the petitioners, who claimed to have won the election by virtue of the results they retrieved from a server into which INEC allegedly transmitted the election results, failed to establish the existence of the server or that results were transmitted electronically.
The judge noted that all the witnesses called by the petitioners failed to give plausible evidence that INEC transmitted results electronically and that it did so into a server.
Justice Garba faulted the evidence by the petitioners’ experts witnesses, including the Kenyan Information and Communication Technology (ICT) expert, David Njorga, invited as the 59th.
The judge noted that the evidence by the so-called expert witness could not be relied on because he, Njorga, claimed to have got information about the existence of a server from a third party’s website – www.factsdontlieng.com.
He said such evidence produced by the witness, which he retrieved from a third party website, could only be regarded as hearsay evidence.
The judge also described as hearsay evidence the written statement and oral evidence by the petitioners’ star witness, Osita Chidoka (former Aviation Minister), who served as the PDP’s National Collation Officer.
The judge noted that, not only did Chidoka admit that he was at the party’s collation centre all through the election period, he also, during cross-examination, admitted that results were manually collated in his presence.
Justice Garba also held that the evidence of another expert witness of the petitioners, Gbenga Joseph, who claimed to be a statistician, could not be relied on because it was hearsay.
The judge further held that INEC was not empowered by any law to engage in electronic transmission of election results.
Justice Garba added that all the INEC documents, particularly the results from what they (the petitioners) classified as the 11 focal states, tendered before the court, were merely dumped on the court, because they did not call the makers and did not demonstrate their relevance to the case.
“The fact still remain that the petitioners have not established their claim that the 2nd respondent was not validly elected by majority of lawful votes.
“The evidence by the 62 witnesses called by the petitioners is not enough to prove the monumental allegations contained in the petition.
“I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have not proved that the 2nd respondent was not validly elected by majority of lawful votes. Issue 3 is also resolved against the petitioners,” Justice Garba held.
He resolved the forth and fifth issues together, which related to the petitioners claim that the election was marred by irregularities and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
The judge held that the petitioners also failed to prove these issues by failing to call relevant witnesses who witnessed the election at the polling unit level and who could testify as to what actually happened.
Justice Garba noted that, rather than calling polling unit agents, as required, the petitioners expended time in calling collation officers, who merely gave hearsay evidence by relaying all that the polling unit agents told them.
The judge was of the view that he only way to prove over-voting, vote manipulation, non-accreditation, among others, which are alleged by the petitioners, was by tendering voters’ register and calling those who could give eye witness accounts.
“The petitioners have not done so. They did not tender voters’ register, did not demonstrate the documents tendered through any of their 62 witnesses called.
“The respondents are, therefore, rights in their submissions that the petitioners dumped the documents, particularly the Form EC8A series, on the court. They did not demonstrate or link to any specific areas relating to issues 4 and 5.
“I have come to the conclusion that the petitioners have not proved any of the grounds constituting these last two issues,” the judge said, and proceeded to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.
The court struck out the APC and Buhari’s application in which they alleged that Atiku is a Cameroonian.
Justice Mohammed held that the PDP candidate was qualified to contest the February election being a Nigerian.
Other members of the panel, Justices Abdul Aboki, Joseph Ikyegh, Samuel Oseji and Peter Ige, agreed with the lead judgment.
We’ll appeal, says Ozekhome
Reacting on behalf of the petitioners, one of their lawyers, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), said he was dissatisfied with the court’s judgment and said the petitioners would appeal once the judgment was available.
Oshiomhole: We’ll meet them at Supreme Court
APC National Chairman, Adam Oshiomhole, who was elated, said he has reached out to his counterpart in the PDP on the need for everyone to put the interest of the nation first.
Osiomhole commended the petitioners for choosing the most civilised and democratic way in challenging the election outcome.
“The issue has been laid to rest. They claimed we cheated. But the court has said otherwise. I think everyone is now satisfied. It is now time to devote time to the real issue of governance,” he said.
Oshiomhole said his party will not discourage the petitioners from going to the Supreme Court, adding: “Should they choose to go to the Supreme Court, we will meet them there.”