TINUBU, SHETTIMA FLOOR ATIKU, OBI AT TRIBUNAL.
....Tribunal strikes out petitions of PDP, LP, APM candidates.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 election was last night upheld by the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC).
After a 12-hour pulsating judgment at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, the five justices unanimously ruled in favour of the President.
They described petitions by Atiku Abubakar/PDP, Peter Obi/LP and Princess ChiChi Ojei/Allied Peoples Movement (APM) as unmeritorious. They dismissed the consolidated petitions.
The petition against the nomination of Vice President Kashim Shettima as running mate was also found to be untenable.
The judgment spark jubilation in far-away New Delhi, India as the President and his team on official trip there, were seen on video celebrating heartily.
Vice President Kashim Shettima, APC National Chairman Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, National Security Adviser (NSA) Nuhu Ribadu, Chief of Staff to the President Femi Gbajabiamila, Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development Festus Keyamo, James Faleke; Senator Ovie Omo-Agege; and Senator Ajibola Bashiru were among those who sat through the proceedings.
Governors in attendance are Hope Uzudinnma (Imo);Bala Muhammed (Bauchi); Yahaya Bello (Kogi); Abdullahi Sule (Nasarawa); Mai Mala Buni (Yobe); Biodun Oyebanji (Ekiti);
But the PDP and the LP rejected the judgment, giving and indication that they might head for Supreme Court.
The judges who handled the matter are: Justice Haruna Tsammani, Justice Stephen Adah, Justice Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Justice Moses Ugo and Justice Abba Mohammed. They are all Court of Appeal justices.
The court, in its judgment on the consolidated petitions, also held that the two sets of petitioners failed to establish through credible evidence that Tinubu and Shettma were not qualified to contest the election.
It further held that it was not the intention of the constitution that a candidate in a presidential election must score 25 percent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) before he/she could be declared as duly elected.
The court, which resolved the four issues, identified for determination in each of the petitions against the petitioners, affirmed the declaration of Tinubu as president.
The court ordered the parties to bear their respective costs.
In the lead judgment in the petition by Obi and his party, which was decided before that of Atiku and his party, which was delivered by the Chairman, Justice Tsammani, the court held that it was wrong for the petitioner to have argued that Tinubu was not qualified, owing to a forfeiture order by a United States court.
The court found that the proceeding leading to the order was a civil forfeiture and not strictly criminal one as claimed by the petitioners.
It held that for somebody to be disqualified under the constitution, there must be indictment, trial, conviction and sentencing, which never occurred in the US court case.
The court held that the fine imposed by the US court was not a fine for fraud or dishonesty as provided in Section 137(1)(d) of the constitution.
It added that the petitioners evidently failed to prove their case that Tinubu was disqualified by virtue of the decision of the US court, adding that Obi and the LP did not comply with the requirement of Section 249(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act in proving conviction outside the country, by tendering a letter issued by a police officer in the foreign country, which the petitioners failed to do.
The tribunal held that the US court case was in respect of a civil case, not a criminal case, adding that even if it was to be a criminal case, Section 137(1)(e) of the constitution requires that such conviction or fine must be within 10 years for such a person to be disqualified.
The court restated its decision in the petition by the APM that Shettima engaged in double nominations and was not disqualified from contesting the election.
The court faulted the petitioners, stating that in addition to scoring one-fourth of the votes in at least two-third of the 36 states of the federation, a candidate in presidential election is also required to score one-fourth of the votes cast in the FCT before he/she can be deemed to have been duly elected.
Justice Tsammani noted that the petitioners’ interpretation of Section 134(2)(d) of the constitution was founded principally on a fixation that the word ‘and’ appearing between the expression ‘he has not less than 1/4 of the votes cast at the election in at least 2/3 of the states of the federation and the FCT, ‘ was “completely falacious, if not outrightly ridiculous.
The tribunal stated that “even their recourse to the case of Abubakar and Yar’Adua does not help their argument…”
Relying on past decisions by the Supreme Court, Justice Tsammani held that the FCT is to be treated like every other states of the federation.
He added: “If the FCT is to be treated like every other states of the federation, then, it is not superior than any other states of the federation.
“It is also my considered view that if the framers of the constitution had wanted to make the scoring of 1/4 votes in the FCT a distinct requirement for the return of a presidential candidate, they would have made that requirement clear by using words that clearly separate the scoring of 1/4 of votes in the FCT as a distinct requirement.
“As expressly stated in Section 299 of the Constitution, for the purposes of fulfilling the requirement of Section 134(2)(d) of the Constitution for the return of a presidential candidate as duly elected, the FCT, Abuja is to be treated as one of the states in the calculation of 2/3 of the states of the federation, such that, if a candidate scores 25 percent or 1/4 of votes in 2/3 of 37 states of the federation, FCT Abuja inclusive, the presidential candidate is deemed to have been duly elected, even if he fails to score 25 percent of the votes cast in FCT, as was done by the 2nd respondent (Tinubu).
“I hold without any hesitation that in presidential election, scoring 1/4 or 25 percent of votes cast in the FCT is not a separate pre-condition for a candidate to be deemed as duly elected under Section 134 of the Constitution.”
On thei allegations of irregularities, malpractices, electoral fraud and non-compliance, the court, after an exhaustive analysis of their evidence, held that the petitioners failed to discharges the burden of proof placed on them by the law.
He noted that while Obi and his party claimed to have agents in all polling units across the country, they failed to call polling unit agents as witness.
According to the tribunal, the petitioners preferred to call people who gave hearsay evidence.
While ruling the respondents’ preliminary objections that challenged the competence of the witnesses called by the petitioners and the documents tendered, the court partially upheld them.
It struck out the evidence of 10 out of the 13 witnesses called by the petitioners, noting that the witnesses, who were subpoenaed at the instance of the petitioners, had their written statements, which contained their evidence, were not filed along or front-loaded with the petition within the 21 days allowed by the Electoral Act 2022.
The court also rejected the documents, including reports of analysis, tendered by the petitioners through the affected 10 witnesses.
The court also held that some of the witnesses are not only persons with interest in the outcome of the case, the reports they tendered were made during the pendency of the case.
The court also struck out some portions of the petition and held that in the affected paragraphs, the petitioners made allegations of malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the election, but failed to provide specific details in support of the allegations.
The court noted that the petitioners failed to show the polling units where the alleged malpractices occurred, the number of votes affected; their polling unit agents who reported the alleged irregularities and malpractices, among others.
It rejected the respondents’ argument that Obi was not a member of the LP as at the time of the election, noting that party membership is an internal affair of a political party, who has the sole power to determine who its members are.
The court held that it did not lie with the respondents to question Obi’s membership of the LP.
The court also faulted the respondents’ contention that Atiku and the PDP, who came second in the election, were necessary parties that ought to be joined in the petition.
The court also expunged from its records a copy of the report on the last presidential election made by the European Union (EU) Election Observers Mission tendered by Obi and the LP.
The court held that the document was obtained by the petitioners from its registry, which was certified by its staff who is not a person with original custody of the document that was produced by the EU mission.
The actual copy of the report was earlier tendered by Atiku and PDP while prosecuting their petition before the court.
The court also rejected the 18,088 blurred results sheets tendered by the petitioners on the grounds that they were not tied to any polling units in which the results related, which the petitioners failed to specify in their petition.
The court held that the petitioners lied that they could not identify the polling units because the result sheets were blurred.
It noted that one of the petitioners’ witnesses actually produced a report in which he analysed the same results, which he claimed to have sourced from INEC’s results viewing platform.
It further noted that, having admitted that it’s agents signed for and collected copies of the result sheets, the petitioners cannot claim not to know the polling units affected, but merely chose not to specify the polling units in their petition.
On the petition by Atiku and the PDP, the court made similar findings on issues relating to the US court case, the 25 percent votes requirement in the FCT and the the quality of evidence led by the petitioners in proof of their case of non-compliance, irregularities, malpractices, electoral fraud, among others.
The court struck out some aspects of the petition by Atiku and PDP, including where they claimed Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election.
The court held that while the petitioners claimed that Tinubu did not meet constitutional threshold to have contested the election, they failed stated what the required qualification was.
The court also struck out some paragraphs where the petitioners accused Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State and one Friday Adejo (described as a Local Government Chairman in Kogi State), but failed to join them as parties to the petition.
It equally struck out some other paragraphs where it found that the petitioners made vague allegations of irregularities and malpractices.
The court further struck out some portions of the petitioners’ including where they accused Tinubu of having dual citizenship.
The court also rejected the aspect where the petitioners claimed that Tinubu was not qualified on grounds of alleged criminal conviction and criminal forfeiture in the United States.
It held that the information contained in the reply was an attempt to smuggle in fresh evidence to cover for the information they failed to provide in their petition in support of their claim that Tinubu was not qualified.
The court also held that the two witnesses statements and other documents filed along with the reply were inadmissible.
It equally struck out evidence of some witnesses, whose written statements were not filed along with the petition, along with documents that were tendered through them.
Other members of the court’s five-member panel-Justices Stephen Adah, Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Boloukuoromo Moses Ugo and
Justice Abba Mohammed-agreed with the lead judgment.
In her contribution, Justice Bolaji-Yusuf stressed that the US case did not qualify as criminal fine or conviction envisaged under the Nigerian Constitution.
She added that the constitution treated every Nigerian citizen equally and did nothing to envisage the creation of some citizens with special status as being canvassed by politicians to further divide the country and it’s people.
Justice Ugo wondered why the petitioners accused INEC of favouring Tinubu when they defeated Tinubu and the then President Muhammadu Buhari in their home states and in the Southeast.
Addressing journalists shortly after the verdict which lasted 13 hours, Atiku’s lead lawyer, Chris Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said he had his client’s instruction to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Uche said: “We have our client’s strong instruction to appeal the judgment.”
In the courtroom, Uche requested for a copy of the judgment from the panel.
But responding to the request, Mr Tsammani said the day had been long and that copies of the judgment would be made available to parties in the suit Thursday.
In the same vein, Obi’s lead counsel, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN) said: “Our clients are dissatisfied with the judgment just delivered. I have the firm instruction of our client to challenge the judgment on appeal.
“We have to be very careful in this country, otherwise electoral jurisprudence will disappear. When those who contest elections find it difficult to establish their case, they may resort to other means which might not be quite good.”
