The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has rejected the judgment of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal that rule on Wednesday that President Muhammadu Buhari was validly elected on February 23, 2019.
In a unanimous decision, the five-man Court of Appeal Justices dismissed all the petitions brought before it by the PDP and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, but awarded no costs against the petitioners.
The five-man panel led by Justice Muhammad Garba ruled on several petitions relating to the presidential election.
Other members of the panel are – Justice Abdul Aboki (Court of Appeal, Abuja), Justice Joseph Ikyegh (Court of Appeal, Benin), Samuel Oseji (Court of Appeal, Lagos) and Justice Peter Ige ( Court of Appeal, Abuja).
In rejecting the ruling, the PDP described it as provocative, barefaced subversion of justice and direct assault on the integrity of the nation’s justice system.
The party expressed shock that the tribunal failed to point to justice despite “the flawless evidence laid before it, showing that President Buhari was not only unqualified to contest the election but also did not score the majority of valid votes at the polls.”
In a statement by PDP spokesman, Kola Ologbondiyan, the party said it was unreasonable “that a court of law could validate a clear case of perjury and declaration of false information in a sworn affidavit, as firmly established against President Muhammadu Buhari, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.”
The statement read fully : “The party is also rudely shocked that the court took over the roles of the respondents’ lawyers who clearly abandoned their pleadings by refusing to call evidence in defense of the petition. The court raked up all manner of excuses to make up for the yawning gaps occasioned by the total absence of any evidence from the respondents.
“Nigerians and the international community watched in utter disbelief when the tribunal ruled that one needs not provide a copy or certified true copy of educational certificate such individual claimed to possess, contrary to established proof of claims of certification.
“The party notes as strange that the court even went ahead to provide rationalizations in favour of President Buhari, even when all hard facts before it shows that he did not possess the claimed educational certificate and that the Army was not in possession of his West African Examination Council (WAEC) certificate as claimed in the affidavit he deposed to in his Presidential nomination form.
“The PDP also described as shocking that the court approved the flawed declaration of President Buhari as the winner of the election despite evidence to show the perpetration of illegalities, manipulations, alterations and subtraction of valid votes freely given to Atiku Abubakar by Nigerians.”
The party further added that “the pervading melancholic atmosphere across our nation since the verdict is a direct indication that the judgment has not fulfilled the desires and expectations of Nigerians.
“The PDP however encouraged Nigerians to remain calm and not to lose hope or surrender to despondency or self-help, as our lawyers are upbeat in obtaining justice at the Supreme Court.
“This is more so as the tribunal itself admitted that there are several errors in the judgment.”
In a ruling lasting over eight hours, the tribunal upheld the election of President Buhari in the February 23, 2018 elections.
In one of its rulings, the panel dismissed an application filed by INEC seeking the disqualification of Atiku’s lead counsel, Livy Uzoukwu.
INEC had described Uzoukwu as a “lawyer unknown to the judiciary.”
The tribunal also agreed with the counsel to the President that it cannot adjudicate on the allegations that Vice President Yemi Osinbajo used unappropriated government funds to induce voters.
Justice Garba, who read the lead judgement, held that President Buhari “is eminently qualified” to contest the 2019 presidential election.
Citing a previous Supreme Court judgment, he said: “Submission of educational certificate is not a requirement for qualification to contest election for governor under section 177 of the Constitution.
“It is established that a candidate is not required under the Electoral Act to attach his certificate to his Form CF001 before a candidate is adjudged to have the requisite qualification to contest the election.
“In effect, the 2nd defendant went through secondary education and then proceeded to military school. The military school is higher than secondary education.
“Thus our conclusion is that Buhari is not only qualified but eminently qualified to contest the presidential election.
“The onus rests squarely on the petitioners to prove their assertion that the 2nd respondent does not possess the educational qualification to contest the election or that he submitted false information which is fundamental in nature to aid his qualification.
“This I have mentioned that the petitioners failed to prove. The petitioners cannot, therefore, rely on any failure in the case.
“I come to the conclusion and I resolve issues 1 and 2 against the petitioners.
“I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners have failed to prove that the second respondent does not possess the qualification to contest the election into the office of the President as stipulated in section 131, 137, 138 of the Constitution.
I am also of the firm view that the petitioners have failed to prove that the second respondent submitted false information which is fundamental in nature to aid his qualification to contest the election into the Office of the President as prescribed in section 35(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.”
The tribunal also dismissed the PDP claim on central server and electronic transmission of results. The panel insisted that manual provided by INEC did not provide for electronic transmission of results.
Justice Garba added: “These claims cannot be countenanced because they lack worth.
“Based on the available evidence, it is clear that the results were collated manually.
“The evidence and report of witness 59 of the petitioners (PW59), cannot be relied on that there was indeed INEC server or servers, as the case may be, into which the results of the presidential election were transmitted.
“Card reader machine has not replaced the voter register. A petitioner must rely on the card reader to prove non-accreditation or over voting.
“I have carefully examined and examined Exhibit 28 (INEC Manual for Election) tendered by the petitioners, I did not see where there is provision for electronic transmission of result of election.
“The petitioners have therefore failed to prove that the second respondent (President Buhari) did not score a majority of lawful votes in the election.”
This matter (issue 3) is hereby resolved against the petitioners.”
The tribunal also quashed the allegation of malpractices during the election. After resolving all the issues in favour of the respondents, the panel held that president was duly re-elected in the country’s last presidential election.