The Independent National
Electoral Commission, INEC, has disclosed why Atiku Abubakar, the 2019
presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, was not declared
winner of the February 23 election.
INEC told the Presidential
Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja that it was satisfied that Atiku
did not secure majority of lawful votes cast during the election.
The country’s electoral umpire
stated this in a final written address it filed before the Justice Mohammed
Garba-led five-member panel tribunal, INEC, through its lawyers led by Mr.
Yunus Usman SAN, seeking the dismissal of Atiku’s petition on the outcome of
the 2019 presidential election.
Denying the allegation that votes
were illegally awarded to the All Progressives Congress, APC, to ensure that
President Muhammadu Buhari was re-elected for a second term, INEC insisted that
the petitioners failed to justify why a fresh election should be conducted.
It said: “We refer to the
relevant paragraphs of the petition where the petitioners made the sundry
allegations of deliberate wrong entry/falsification of election results by the
1st Respondent.
“Clearly, it can be gleaned that
nothing concrete or specific has been offered by the Petitioners in this
regard.
“For example, the petitioners
pleaded wrong and deliberate entry of wrong results by the 1st Respondent in 11
states of the country, namely: Borno, Yobe, Bahchi, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna,
Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger and Zamfara States.
“Thereafter, the petitioners
proceeded to break down this allegation State by State.
“However, a cursory appraisal of
paragraph 155(4) of the petition dealing with this allegation of ‘posting wrong
results’ to the non-existent 1st Respondent’s server and not the wrongful entry
of the results in the physical /manual Form EC8 series.
“The most astonishing part is
that the petitioners failed to call witnesses who were at the various Units to
observe these various alleged anomalies.
“We submit that allegations
bordering on alleged wrong entry/falsification of election result are criminal
in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“Furthermore, by virtue of
section 150(1) of the Evidence Act, the results declared by the 1st Respondent
enjoy a presumption of regularity. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are duty
bound to rebut this presumption with credible evidence”.
The electoral commission said
Atiku failed to show how the number of votes cancelled affected the votes he
got.
It added: “We submit that it is
trite law that not only is the petitioner duty-bound to prove each and every
allegation on non-compliance; he is also expected to prove that such
non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. See BUHARI V
OBASANJO (supra), NYESOM WIKE V DAKUKU &ORS (supra).
“We humbly submit from the
foregoing that the petitioners have failed to prove the allegation of
non-compliance with the Electoral Act, and indeed every other allegation
contained in the petition. The petition, therefore, lacks merit and should be
thrown out on this point and this honourable court is urged so to do.
“In the instant petition, the
petitioners called 62 witnesses in proof of their petition. Only 5 were polling
agents, while 5 were Assistant Presiding Officers, who incidentally had no
problem with the conduct of the election but only came to assert that they
transmitted the election result to a fictitious and non-existent server.
“The rest of the witnesses called
are Ward, Local Government, State or National Collation Agents. And the aim of
the petitioner is to use them to prove allegations of non-compliance with the
Electoral Act during the Presidential Elections in 36 States of the Federation
and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja. What a mission impossible!
“The eyes of the parties and
candidates in an election at the Polling Unit are their respective agents and
voters who were present to cast their votes. Consequently, in calling witnesses
in proof of these allegations, these class of individuals are indispensable.
“Taking a rational, reasonable
and critical examination and assessment of the evidence placed before this
honorable court, one cannot but submit most humbly that the elements of the
allegations of corrupt practices against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents have
not been proved at all talk less of proof beyond reasonable doubt”.
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everyday
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com