The supreme court has given its
verdict on Atiku Abubakar’s appeal against President Muhammadu Buhari’s
election victory.
After about five hours of
sitting, a seven-man panel led by Tanko Mohammed, chief justice of Nigeria
(CJN), held that the appeal by the PDP presidential candidate lacked merit.
It upheld the judgement of the
presidential election petition tribunal which affirmed Buhari’s election.
Here is how the proceedings
unfolded?
The PDP candidate suffered his
first loss when the apex court rejected his plea to allow him to adopt all the
briefs filed.
Levi Uzoukwu, Atiku’s lead
counsel, had requested that all lawyers adopt their briefs, both in the main
appeal and in seven other interlocutory appeals.
But the panel turned down the
request. It held that the main appeal covers the interlocutory appeals as well.
‘MUHAMMADU’ NOT SAME AS ‘MOHAMED’
The variation in the spelling of
Buhari’s name was brought to the fore again. This time, Uzoukwu insisted that
the second respondent (Buhari) failed to prove he is the owner of a certificate
tendered as an exhibit.
He said the APC candidate failed
to give any explanation for the discrepancy in his first name “Muhammadu”, and
that which appeared in the exhibit, “Mohamed,” and that the tribunal was wrong
to have speculated without evidence that the second respondent also bears
“Mohamed”.
But Wole Olanipekun, Buhari’s
counsel, opposed his argument. He argued that the PDP counsel had a similar
case at the appellate court, but that it was overlooked.
He said while Uzoukwu was called
to the bar by the name, ‘Levinus Onyemachi Uzoukwu’, he uses only ‘Levi
Uzoukwu’ and so, he cannot question Buhari’s own case.
He also said the variation in
Buhari’s name depends on the persons pronouncing it.
‘BUHARI WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO
CONTEST FOR PRESIDENT’
The PDP counsel argued that
Buhari was not qualified for the election because he allegedly failed to tender
any of the certificates he said he acquired.
He said none of Buhari’s
witnesses gave evidence as to what the certificates look like.
But the president’s counsel
countered his argument. He said the Nigerian constitution does not mandate a
presidential candidate to attach his certificates as evidence of qualification.
‘INEC’S ARGUMENT ON SERVER
BASELESS’
On server, Uzoukwu said section 52(2)
of the electoral act which INEC relied upon in rejecting the use of sever has
been amended and deleted from the electoral act, and so, the argument is
baseless.
But Yunus Usman, INEC lead
counsel, asked the court to dismiss Uzoukwu’s submission, saying the amendment
only states that INEC has discretion on how to transmit election results.
In the same breath, Buhari’s
lawyer said the court of appeal did not agree that there was a server contrary
to the appellant’s submission, and that the conclusion is that, “there was a
website managed and controlled by INEC”.
‘ONLY 5 OF 191,000 POLLING AGENTS
CALLED AS WITNESS’
Usman also said PDP’s argument on
polling units lacked merit because they failed to call witnesses as required by
the law.
The INEC counsel said the party
called only five polling agents across the 191,000 polling units in the
presidential election, whereas “the law requires that a polling agent must be
called to testify from each of the polling units across the country”.
COURT ASKED TO THROW OUT PDP’S
APPEAL ‘AS FAR AS HANDS CAN GO’
The APC had only one prayer: That
the supreme court throw out the appellants’ appeal “as far as hands can go”.
Lateef Fagbemi, APC counsel,
concurred with Olanipekun’s submission, and asked the apex court to “throw out
the appeal as far as hands can go”.
And it turned out to be the case.
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