TheNewsGuru

Tag: election

  • The courts must nullify President Buhari’s election on grounds of perjury – Femi Aribisala

    By Femi Aribisala

    There can be no doubt that we are living today in Nigeria in proverbially “interesting times.” We have just gone through the worst presidential election in the history of Nigeria, marred by massive fraud, vote inflation and deflation, ballot-snatching, riots and voter intimidation and suppression.

    Atiku Abubakar, one of the main contestants in the election, has painstakingly presented a water-tight case before the presidential elections petition tribunal; indicating that the declaration of President Buhari as the winner of the February 2019 presidential election was a great travesty of justice. The future of the country hangs on a precipice, while we await the verdict of the learned judges of the judiciary.

    Case against Buhari

    A critical aspect of the case against the president pertains to his school-leaving certificate, which is a constitutional requirement for contesting the presidential election. At different times, the president has presented different contradictory statements concerning this.

    At one point, we were told that the president’s certificate is with the military board. Then we were told the primary school he attended could attest for his WASC results. Then we were told that WAEC has decided to deliver a confirmation of his result directly to the president in Aso Rock. Then we were told that Abba Kyari, the president’s chief of staff, personally collected a copy of the president’s certificate from Cambridge WASC.

    Then we were told that the president actually obtained a Master’s degree from the War College in the United States. Then we were told that the president speaks good English, therefore, he does not need a certificate to show he is qualified to be president. Then we were told the president has a photograph attesting to his stint in primary or secondary school. It has even been argued that the president is better academically qualified to run for office than his main opponent, Atiku Abubakar.

    However, in the final analysis, all these points of contention no longer matter one way or the other. The critical point is this: in filing his INEC papers for the 2019 presidential election, President Buhari lied under oath. He committed outright perjury. Under the law in Nigeria, this renders him ineligible to contest the presidency. Therefore, his declaration by INEC as duly elected president of Nigeria must be nullified by the courts.

    This is not even a case of asking for the election to be re-run. Lai Mohammed, the Minister of Information and Culture, has been making a last-ditch plea on behalf of the president. He says concerning the president’s non-existent school-leaving certificate: “53 years after a fellow has left secondary school. I think we should pardon him if he does not even know where he has kept it.”

    However, it is not the business of the judiciary to pardon a serial violator of the law. It is the business of the judiciary to uphold the law. On more than one occasion, President Buhari failed to provide his academic education qualifications to INEC as required by the law. This time, he provided false information to INEC under oath. Therefore, his election as president must be nullified and Atiku Abubakar should automatically be declared duly elected president of Nigeria.

    In 2015, General Buhari failed to provide his academic qualifications to INEC as required by law. Nevertheless, he was sworn in as president of Nigeria. But now the question of the president’s non-existent academic qualification to be president has resurfaced again and it has now been put squarely before the courts. The question that arises now is this: is the president above the law? Are Nigerians equal before the law? Should Muhammadu Buhari who flouted the law in 2015 be allowed to flout it again in 2019?

    If Nigeria is to be confirmed as a nation of laws and of the rule of law, this must not be allowed to happen again. The courts need to speak in no uncertain terms that President Buhari is not above the law but subject to the law.

    Mr. president’s shenanigans

    In the bid to convince skeptical Nigerians that the president is qualified to run for president, in November 2018, officials of the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) led by the registrar, Dr. Iyi Uwadiae, came all the way from Ghana to present to the president in Aso Rock an attestation certificate that he sat for his WASC exams, as well as a confirmation of his results.

    However, Dr, Uwadiae committed a blunder by claiming that WAEC has the records of the exam that President Buhari took in 1962. Significantly, President Buhari himself made no such claim. The president claimed he took the exam in 1961 and not in 1962. Dr. Uwadiae had to be corrected concerning the precise date during his presentation in Aso Rock. Surely, if the so-called records at WAEC were authentic, they would indicate the correct date.

    Moreover, at the presidential elections’ tribunal of 2019, a senior official of WAEC testified under oath that the documents lavishly presented to the president by Dr. Uwadiae actually did not originate from WAEC. If not, where then did they come from? Are they forgeries? Was the event in 2018, which was well-publicized in the glare of television cameras and carried prominently in the national dailies, simply a ruse intended to deceive innocent Nigerians?

    Your guess is as good as mine.

    The crux of the matter now is that President Buhari did not, in fact, submit a valid school-leaving certificate to INEC as required by law before contesting the 2019 presidential elections. The evidence suggests the president might not even possess a valid certificate.

    Presidential perjury

    President Buhari filed an affidavit with INEC claiming that he attended Middle School, Katsina from 1953 to 1956. However, the national archive in Kaduna indicates conclusively that the Middle School was abolished in Northern Nigeria in 1953, so Buhari’s claim to have attended Middle School, Katsina from 1953 to 1956 is palpably false.

    It was also discovered that primary school certificates were only presented upon completion of Middle School from 1948 to 1952 and not before. This again contradicts what President Buhari swore on oath in his INEC form CF001. He claimed he obtained his primary school certificate in 1952 and that he attended Middle School, Katsina from 1953 to 1956.

    This means the president could not have obtained the primary school certificate as he claimed. In effect, what the president presented to INEC under oath was false.

    The president stands accused of perjury; an infraction punishable under the law. He swore an oath and made an affidavit to INEC claiming he attended Elementary School Daura and Mai Aduaa between 1948 and 1952. However, those schools were not in even existence either in Katsina or in the entire Northern Nigeria between 1948 and 1952. How then could President Buhari have attended non-existent schools?

    President Buhari also swore on oath to INEC that he attended Middle School Katsina between 1953 and 1956. But again, the Middle School was not in existence as of 1953 and up till 1956. Finally, the president swore on oath that he attended Katsina Provincial College between 1956 and 1961. However, Katsina Provincial College was neither built, founded nor even in existence between 1956 and 1961.

    All this makes our dear president a serial perjurer; an offense punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment. It also renders him disqualified as a presidential candidate, ensuring that he is not even entitled to be credited with any votes whatsoever.

    The claim made on President Buhari’s Wikipedia page that he attended the United States War College in 1980 and obtained a Master’s Degree is also far from the truth. The U.S. War College affirms that it only awarded diploma courses in the period when Buhari was there. It only started its Master’s program in 2000, long after President Buhari had left.

    Gaping holes in defense

    Under testimony at the tribunal, President Buhari’s defense collapsed. The president’s own witness contradicted the position he filed in his INEC form CF001 that his academic qualification documents: “are currently with the Secretary, Military Board as of the time of presenting this affidavit.”

    Major-General Paul Tarfa was one of President Buhari’s course mates in the military, and he was brought to the tribunal by the president’s lawyers to confirm Buhari’s position when the president opened his defense However, the Major-General testified that he and the president never submitted any certificates to the military board.

    This confirms the claim of the military that the army has neither the certified true copy of the president’s credentials, nor even a copy of the certificate. A statement released by the Nigerian Army gave the lie to Buhari’s INEC affidavit by stating as follows:

    “It is a practice in the Nigerian Army that before candidates are shortlisted for commissioning into the officers’ cadre of the Service; the Selection Board verifies the original copies of credentials that are presented. However, there is no available record to show that this process was followed in the 1960s. Neither the original copy, Certified True Copy (CTC); nor statement of result of Major General M Buhari’s WASC result, is in his personal file.”

    That means again in no uncertain terms that Buhari committed perjury when he swore on oath that the military has his certificates. In effect, INEC is guilty of gross dereliction of duty. It failed in its responsibility to provide due diligence by vetting properly President Buhari’s credentials before allowing him to contest the 2019 presidential election.

    Asked to defend its position that Buhari is qualified to contest, INEC failed to defend its stand at the presidential election petitions tribunal. It claimed it does not have any witness or evidence to present before the tribunal to defend its case. This is a sign of total defeat.

    Judiciary to the rescue

    The onus is now on the Nigerian judiciary to uphold the rule of law and salvage Nigeria’s democracy. In Nigeria, if a university graduate does not have an NYSC certificate, he is ineligible for public employment. That is the law. Similarly, if a presidential candidate does not have a school-leaving certificate, he is ineligible to stand for election as president of Nigeria.

    The Nigerian judiciary remains one of the boldest and brightest in Africa, as can be seen in several of the cases it has already adjudicated in the current election cycle. Our judges are of such high international repute, they are regularly conscripted as justices in foreign countries such as the Gambia as well as in the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

    The verdict of the courts on the 2019 presidential election is final. Therefore, Nigerians are waiting with bated breath to see how it will rule in this monumental case. Whatever may be its final verdict, one thing is certain. Nigeria will not be the same again after its pronouncement.

  • BREAKING: Tribunal nullifies Orji Kalu’s election as Abia Senator, orders rerun

    The National and State Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Abia state has nullified the election of Orji Uzor Kalu as the Senator representing Abia North.

    The tribunal has also ordered for a rerun election for the Abia North Senatorial District.

    Kalu, until today, was a Senator under the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and was inaugurated alongside other federal lawmakers for the 9th National Assembly.

    More details later…

  • Election Petitions Tribunal affirms Ekweremadu’s victory

    The State and National Assembly Elections Petitions Tribunal in Enugu has affirmed the election of Sen. Ike Ekweremadu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in the Feb. 23 general elections.

    In a unanimous judgement delivered on Monday, the tribunal dismissed the petition brought by Mrs. Juliet Ibekaku-Nwagwu of the All Progressives Congress (APC), as lacking in merit.

    The Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Haruna Kereng, while reading the judgment, said that the petitioners completely failed to prove their allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

    Kereng said that allegations of substantial non-compliance to the Electoral Act, thuggery, falsification of figures needed to be proven polling unit by polling unit.

    He said that the few polling unit witnesses brought by the petitioners failed to demonstrate to the tribunal how the election figures were falsified.

    He said that out of the 824 polling units, 81 wards and five local government areas in the state, the petitioners were only able to present 16 witnesses with most of them presenting testimonies that were not convincing.

    “INEC had declared Ekweremadu winner with 86,088 vote against 15,187 scored by Ibekaku-Nwagwu. It is the responsibility of the petitioners to bring their polling unit agents to demonstrate to us how over 70,000 vote will be deducted from the score of the first respondent to make them winners.

    “They only presented witnesses in few polling units and wards,” he said.

    Kereng said that the petitioners ought to have pleaded two sets of results, including the wrong and correct results that would have returned them as winners.

    He said that certain paragraphs of their petition contained criminal allegations and that the persons whom the allegations were made against remained hidden.

    “Having failed woefully to prove their allegations that the first respondent was not elected by majority of lawful vote cast, we, therefore, affirm the election of the first respondent as winner of the election,” he declared.

    Kereng awarded a cost of N750,000 against the petitioners.

    Reacting, counsel to the first respondent, Mrs. Justina Offiah (SAN), described the judgment as thorough, adding that all counsels in the matter had put in their best.

    Offiah requested for a conservative cost against the petitioners to serve as a deterrent to election losers who would want to approach the tribunal with flimsy petitions.

    However, counsel to the petitioners, Mr Patrick Luke, said that it was the constitutional right of those who are declared losers in an electoral process to seek redress in a court of law.

    “It is my humble view that all the parties should bear their costs because all the parties incurred costs,” Luke added.

  • Ebonyi: Tribunal dismisses suit challenging Umahi’s election

    The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abakaliki, Ebonyi state capital on Monday upheld the election of Governor David Umahi even as it struck out the suit filed by the People’s Democratic Movement (PDP) against the election.

    The PDP had dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to court for allegedly excluding its name from the ballot box.

    Joined in the suit were the Governor David Umahi, who won the election.

    Umahi’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was also joined in the suit as the third respondent.

    Umahi, it will be recalled, had won the March 9 governorship election in the state.

    He defeated Senators Sunny Ogbuoji of the All Progressive Congress (APC), who placed second and 35 others to win a second term in office.

    But the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) and its candidate in the election Ajah Agha petitioned the Tribunal for what he termed unlawful exclusion of his name in INEC ballot paper.

    The candidate and the PDM also prayed the tribunal to cancel the said election and order for the conduct of another one.

    But in the tribunal in a one and half hour judgment struck out the case for lack of merit.

    The sitting which took place at the state High Court premises had Justice A.B Abdukareem presiding.

    Delivering Judgement on the tribunal sitting, which lasted for over three months on Monday, Justice Abdukareem said that PDM failed to proof that it conducted primaries in line with the provisions of the electoral acts.

    The Tribunal also said that there was no evidence before it to show that the party submitted the name of their candidate to INEC before the deadline stipulated by INEC for parties to do so.

    “Your party sent the name three days after closure of submission according to finding”

    “Also your party did not organize primaries as to produce a candidate according to INECs guideline, therefore your petition lacks merit, the Tribunal said.

    The member representing Ohaozara, Onicha and Ivo Federal Constituency, Livinus Makwe congratulated the Governor on the ruling.

    He noted that the tribunal’s judgement which affirmed the victory of Ebonyi state Governor was a true reflection of the wishes of Ebonyi people which they demonstrated on the March 9, 2019 Governorship poll.

    In a statement issued by his Media office in Abakaliki, the Lawmaker noted that he was not surprised about the governor’s victory owing to the general acceptance and popularity which Umahi’s administration is enjoying in the state.

    He said that the petitioners decision to challenge the outcome of the election was a nullity as Umahi’s election was adjudged by all Observers to be credible, free and fair.

    Mr Makwe also commended the Peoples Democractic Party and the entire people of Ebonyi state for their continuous support and cooperation with the present leadership in the state.

  • Court dismisses suit against Gbajabiamila’s election

    Court dismisses suit against Gbajabiamila’s election

    Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja has dismissed a suit filed against the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila.

    The plaintiff, Phillip Undie had filed the suit on May 21, 2019, asking the court to sack Gbajabiamila as a member of the House of Representatives and disqualify him from contesting the leadership of the lower legislative chamber.

    Undie had claimed that Gbajabiamila was convicted by the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia in the United States of America in 2007 for fraud and dishonesty and therefore, was not qualified to be elected a member of the National Assembly and a Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    On June 14, 2019 Undie’s lawyer, Akeem Olasupo announced his withdrawal from the case, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/539/2019.

    Olasupo, who was represented by Michael Ayan on June 14, 2019 said: “I want to inform the court that the plaintiff’s lawyer said he no longer wants to appear in the case again. Olasupo Akeem, who is representing the applicant, is no longer interested in representing the plaintiff in this matter,” Ayan said.

    Gbajabiamila’s lawyer, Femi Adedeji queried Olasupo’s decision to withdraw his appearance without withdrawing the case.

    Lawyers to the other defendants did not oppose Olasupo’s withdrawal as plaintiff’s lawyer, but noted that he ought to have withdrawn the case too.

    Ruling, Justice Ekwo granted Olasupo’s request to withdraw from the case, but noted that: “The plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the case, but he did not withdraw the case, meaning the case is still before this court,” and adjourned till June 17, 2019.

    At the resumed hearing of the case, a new lawyer engaged by the plaintiff, S.D Okoro adopted a notice of discontinuance of the suit filed by the plaintiff and prayed the court to strike out the case.

    Gbajabiamila’s lawyer, Adedeji did not oppose the plaintiff’s decision to discontinue the case, but argued that, since parties have joined issues, with the defendants filing counter processes, the appropriate order for the court to make was that of dismissal.

    Adedeji also urged the court to grant the cost of N1million against the plaintiff.

    He also prayed for a cost of N1m to be awarded against the plaintiff.

    Ruling, Justice Ekwo said: “On the last day of hearing of this case, Mr. Okoro appeared for the plaintiff, but there were no processes before the court, showing that there was a change of counsel. Today (June 24, 2019), I take notice of a process titled ‘change of counsel’ by Mr. Okoro dated June 20, 2019.

    “Therefore, I am satisfied that Mr. Okoro has authority to represent the plaintiff in this case and therefore, entitled to conduct the case in accordance with the law. Now, Mr. Okoro has adopted the notice of discontinuance, dated June 17, 2019 and this is happening after issues have been joined in the substantive matter. Mr. Okoro is praying that the matter be struck out.

    “I have listened to Mr. Adedeji; counsel for the 1st defendant, and on the consequential order to be made at this stage. It is the law that when parties have joined issues and the plaintiff seeks to withdraw the case, the proper order is that dismissing the suit.

    “It is in this like that I agree with the learned counsel for the 1st defendant, and I hereby make an order dismissing this suit. On the issue of cost, I will not make any order as to cost, since parties decided to end the matter peacefully. I allow them to go home without grudges against each other,” Justice Ekwo said.

  • Celebrating democracy day with election rigmarole – Femi Aribisala

    Celebrating democracy day with election rigmarole – Femi Aribisala

     

    By Femi Aribisala

    The Nigeria of today is stranger than fiction. The government has just legally declared June 12 “Democracy Day” and proclaimed that, henceforth, it will be a public holiday when we will celebrate Nigeria’s hard-won democracy.

    Except that this celebration of democracy is at the instance of an undemocratic government that has done a lot in the past few months to destroy democracy in Nigeria.

    June 12 is in remembrance of that day in 1993, when one of Nigeria’s freest elections was maliciously annulled because the powers-that-be did not like the result. President Buhari is now trying to make political capital out of the matter by proclaiming government remorse over that act of brazen illegality. But the problem is that he himself is the architect of the annulment of an earlier election in 1983.

    In effect, President Buhari is making a song and dance out of apologizing for an election he did not annul; but he refuses to apologize for the election he annulled. And we are all supposed to pretend that there is nothing strange and suspicious about this.

    Moreover, the president, who is now celebrating the “birthday” of democracy in Nigeria, is at the same time orchestrating the “death day” of democracy in Nigeria by being at the center of the worst election in the history of Nigeria; the recently concluded presidential election of February 2019.

    We are all witnesses of this government’s contradictory style of democracy. The chaos, acrimony and shenanigans of the last few months happened in broad daylight. So, it is only appropriate to ask what precisely we are supposed to be celebrating in this new-fangled Democracy Day?

    Celebrating rigmarole

    Are we celebrating the fact that campaigning for nomination at APC primaries resulted in fisticuffs and killings? Are we celebrating the suppression of candidates by fixing the price of APC nomination papers at extortionate levels affordable primarily to those with questionable wealth?

    Are we celebrating the declaring of winners as losers and losers as winners at APC primaries, and the brouhaha and court-cases that have resulted? Are we celebrating the booing and stoning of even the president and his entourage by his party-members at APC rallies populated with rented crowds, some of them imported from neighbouring countries?

    Are we celebrating Mr. President’s conversion of polling-stations into battlefields with his directive that the military should shoot and kill ballot-snatchers without recourse to the rule of law? Are we celebrating the disorienting of voters, especially those who travelled back home to vote, by the tactical cancelling of the presidential election at the last minute and its mischievous re-scheduling?

    Are we celebrating the disingenuous buying of votes with “trader-monies,” or the enticement of voters with rice, garri and hard cash ferried around in trailer trucks and bullion vans? Are we celebrating the suppression of votes by threats and mayhem on election day, including the looting and sacking of polling-stations in opposition strongholds?

    Should we celebrate the president’s refusal to sign the electoral act, even after several entreaties; INEC’s declaration of fictitious results; and the fact that the election is now a major bone of contention in the courts?

    It is right to celebrate what Mike Ozekhome characterises as “acts of gangsterism, hooliganism and shameless ‘agberoism’ quite unbecoming of a ruling party.”

    The answer to all this is a capital “NO!” We cannot, we should not and we will not. No June 12 declaration as Democracy Day can obfuscate the rape of democracy we have just witnessed. What we have in Nigeria is not government of the people by the people and for the people; but government of the government by the government and for the government.

    Insult to intelligence

    The government’s June 12 proclamation as now Democracy Day is an insult to the intelligence of Nigerians. The enemies of our democracy cannot pretend at the same time to be the defenders of democracy.

    To celebrate this “new and improved” Democracy Day, the government gathered together a large retinue of African heads-of-state who came because they felt somewhat beholden to Nigeria. However, it could not get a single one of the former heads-of-state of Nigeria to attend. They refused, in one accord, to participate in this sham of an event and would not validate a clearly stolen mandate.

    In a most dramatic fashion that could not have been lost on the assembled foreign dignitaries, Nigeria’s former heads-of-state rained on the president’s elaborate parade.

    Verdict of failure

    We now have the verdict on the European Union Election Observation Mission (EOM) for the February 2019 election and it is certainly nothing to celebrate. As a matter of fact, it is quite damning. EU observers were of the view that INEC conducted an election that was definitely far below international best standards.

    Among other things, the EU noted that the results forms and smart card readers were not packed in tamper-proof envelopes as required. We may well ask: “why not?” If mago mago is not intended, does anybody have to teach us about this requirement?

    The same goes for other INEC anomalies that are basic and not rocket-science. The EU noted that there were numerical discrepancies and anomalies on polling unit results forms. There was no clear system of record-keeping. There were inconsistent numbers during the collation exercise.

    There was lack of clear checks and explanations, and insufficient public information and this undermined the integrity of the elections. This means, in effect, the declared results were questionable.

    “Citizens did not have sufficient means to scrutinise results.” This is deliberate lack of transparency. “INEC did not provide centralised information on the declared results for the different locations and has not posted complete results data on its website.” We may well ask again: “Why not?”

    In addition: “there was lack of disaggregated results by local government, ward or polling unit, which would allow for thorough checking of results.” “The discrepancies and insufficient public information were not in line with international standards for access to information and public accountability.” “In cases, INEC even recorded more valid votes than the number of accredited voters.”

    The EU also decried widespread government pressure on the independence of the judiciary. It observed that Chief Justice Onoghen’s suspension on the eve of the elections did not follow due process, and maintained that his suspension shaped the poll’s outcome. It decried the violence that attended the elections, alleging that over 150 people were killed in the melee. It also noted that the polls were marred by acts of voter intimidation, including cases of security officials harassing voters.

    Only the blind, deaf and dumb will refuse to recognize that this is a major indictment of INEC and the APC government. The outcome of all this is that the 2019 elections turned out, as the government had planned it, as one big sham.

    Therefore, I ask again, what democracy exactly can the government now be celebrating with so much fanfare in Abuja? We must not allow ourselves to be deceived. The June 12 celebration, the Democracy Day proclamation, the assemblage of African dignitaries in Abuja, are all part and parcel of a big cover-up by the government of its stolen mandate. It is an attempt to validate an invalid election with subterfuge.

    Operation cover-up

    Make no mistake about it, the cover-up is on. A major bone of contention about the election has to do with whether INEC used or did not use a central electronic server to post results. The PDP claims it secured access to the INEC server, only to discover that the election result posted there is completely different from the one INEC announced to the public.

    INEC declared Buhari as the winner of the presidential election with a plurality of nearly 4 million votes, but according to the PDP, the result posted on the INEC central server indicates that Atiku actually won the election with nearly 2 million votes.

    However, INEC insists it did not use a central server where results were uploaded during the election. But this position is not credible because INEC told Nigerians in no uncertain terms beforehand that the 2019 election results would be stored in a central server. In the presence of the INEC Chairman, Professor Mahmud Yakubu; Chidi Nwafor, INEC’s Director of Information and Communication Technology, said:

    “Observations have shown that most election malpractices that take place do not take place at polling units. The challenge has been after the poll- between the polling units and the collation centres and at the collation centre. INEC has therefore decided to transmit results from all polling units to central database such that viewing access is allowed at wards and local government levels- which ultimately eliminates manual collation processes.”

    According to Chidi Nwafor, the new e-collation system has four procedures: “(1) Results from polling units will be entered into the e-collation application on the smart card reader; (2) Results are transmitted to a central server; (3) Results are auto-collated and can be viewed at the RAs (wards) and ECA8s can be scanned at that level; and (4) Result audit and confirmation takes place at collation centres at LGAs, state and national level.”

    Mr. Nwafor said the new system would be used for all elections, from local council polls which INEC conducts in the Federal Capital Territory to the presidential election. INEC chairman, Mahmud Yakubu himself is on video, telling Nigerians that INEC would be “deploying in the 2019 general elections a new platform for electronic collation and transmission of results.”

    He said manual results, copied into FORM EC8 A and E, will be used by e-collection officers at the wards to determine if there are any discrepancies.

    Out of the billions approved for the elections, no less than 237 million naira was allocated specifically for server-related expenses. Therefore, it is deceitful for INEC to now maintain they did not use a central electronic server in the election.

    Forensic audit

    Atiku is praying the court to grant access for him to inspect the INEC servers. Should the court approve, forensic audit would still reveal what was in them, even if they have since been deleted. If INEC does not have anything to hide, it would readily consent to this request. However, it is insisting Atiku’s request must be denied.

    The judiciary remains the only redeeming grace of this sordid drama. From the way cases pertaining to state governments and legislative elections have been adjudicated, it is clear that the courts have no favourites and have shown a high degree of integrity and impartiality.

    Therefore, whatever they decide on this delicate matter should be accepted by all and sundry. In all this election palaver, the judiciary remains the only institution in Nigeria that has deserved high commendation.

  • A’Court dismisses suit challenging Borno governor’s election

    A’Court dismisses suit challenging Borno governor’s election

    The Court of Appeal Jos Division, yesterday, dismissed an appeal challenging the nomination of Borno Governor, Prof. Babagana Zulum of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Alhaji Idris Mamman-Gatumbwa had filed a petition before Justice U. Onyemenam-led justices of the Appellate Court, seeking it to upturn the judgment of he Federal High Court, which okayed his (Zulum) nomination as Borno APC governorship candidate for the 2019 general elections.

    Justice Onyemenam, while delivering judgment of the appellate court, dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    “The appeal filed before this appellate by Alhaji Idris Mamman-Gatumbwa, is statute barred and of no effect as it is lacking in merit.

    “Looking at the nature of the case, the decision of the lower court is therefore upheld and the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit,” Onyemenam declared.

    The judge held that the case was filed before the lower court after the statutory 14 days grace as stipulated by the electoral Act.

    News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reported that Justice Jude Dakat of Borno Federal High Court, had dismissed the petition of the appellant on the basis that it lacked merit.

    Dakat had, in that judgment held that the petitions lacked merit on the grounds that it was filed out of the 14 days grace to challenge any discrepancy during party primaries as stipulated by the electoral act.

    Counsel for the appellant, Mr Ibrahim Bawa, SAN, had approached the Appellate court to upturn the judgment of the Lower Court, praying it to look into the merit of the case and order the party to do the needful in accordance with the law.

    He had prayed the court to upturn the decision of the Lower Court, which failed to look at the merit of case but dismissed it.

    Bawa further stated that the lower court was wrong to declare that “we were out of the 14 days.”

    He also argued that Section 87 of the Electoral Act stipulates that primaries not properly conducted should be nullified.

    He had prayed the appellate court to allow the appeals.

     

  • LASIEC sets to hold by-election in Surulere Ward on Saturday

    The Lagos State Independent Electoral Commission, LASIEC, says it is ready to conduct by-election into Ward A (Obele/Oniwala) in Surulere Local Government Area of Lagos tomorrow (Saturday).

    The scheduled by-election was necessitated by the death of the Councillor, representing the Ward, Hon. Razak Bello, which imposed a constitutional duty on the Commission to organise a by-election in the ward so that residents of the area were given the opportunity to choose a new representative through the ballot.

    At news conference on Friday in Yaba, Lagos, LASIEC Chairman, Justice Ayotunde Phillips (Rtd) said the commission was fully ready for the poll, which would be contested by two political parties-All Progressives Congress, APC, and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.

    She said since the demise of Bello, the Commission issued the notice of By-election along with the guidelines for the poll on Wednesday, 10 April, 2019 at a forum which was attended by many stakeholders to signal the commencement of the process that would culminate into the conduct of the election.

    Phillips said only two candidates, Kazeem Bello (APC ) and Abdulateef Bolaji Sanni ( PDP) indicated interest to contest the election.

    The LASIEC boss assured residents of the affected Ward and other stakeholders that the Commission was ready and fully prepared for the by-election, as it had taken delivery of all election materials, both sensitive and non-sensitive, required for the conduct of the poll.

    “We have also trained our personnel who will participate in the conduct of the by-election. Even though we are going to use the staff of the Commission for the conduct of the by- election, the Commission had to retrain the staff to ensure that they are up to date in terms of the information and knowledge required to enable them discharge their duties effectively and efficiently as election managers.

    “The Commission will, therefore, tolerate no excuses for mistakes on the part of the personnel. All election personnel are expected to comply fully with the rules and regulations guiding the conduct of elections.

    “We also recognise the complementary role played by security agencies, particularly the police, the Department of State Service ( DSS ) and the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, in ensuring hitch-free and peaceful elections. The Commission has, therefore, enlisted the support and cooperation of relevant security agencies and they have assured us that adequate security would be provided to forestall any breakdown of law and order in the affected area,” she stated.

    Phillips appealed to all eligible registered voters to go out en-masse and cast their votes for any candidate or political party of their choice without any fear of molestation or attack, adding that this by-election was another golden opportunity for eligible registered voters in Ward A ( Obele/ Oniwala ) to vote for either of the two candidates whom they believed would give them effective representation in government at the Local Government level and facilitate development to the community.

    “The period of the by-election is between 9.00a.m. and 3.00p.m. on Saturday, 27th April, 2019. Accreditation and voting will take place simultaneously. There will be no restriction of vehicular movement during the period of the bye-election so that business and economic activities of the people are not disrupted or paralysed unduly.

    “The Commission is determined to make the electoral process free, fair and credible. We shall make people’s votes to count. The Commission, however, expects politicians and other stakeholders to give peace a chance as acts of lawlessness will not be tolerated,” she said.

  • Osun guber: Oyetola, APC, INEC urge Appeal Court to uphold election

    …As Court reserves judgments on four appeals

    The Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to uphold the victory of Oyetola and APC in the governorship election held in the state on September 22 and 27, 2018.

    Their request is contained in three separate appeals they filed against the majority judgment given by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal on March 22, 2019.

    The tribunal had, in the majority judgment, given by two of its three members upheld the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Senator Ademola Adeleke and voided Oyetola and APC’s victory.

    In their appeals, argued on Wednesday, Oyetola, the APC and INEC prayed the five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Jummai Sankey, to set aside the majority decision of the tribunal, uphold their appeals and dismiss the October 16, 2018 petition by Adeleke and the PDP.

    They equally urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal filed by Adeleke, on the grounds that it is unmeritorious.

    In the appeal by Oyetola, his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) faulted the reasons given by the tribunal in reaching the judgment appealed against, arguing that the decision was not supported by the evidence led by the petitioners.

    He urged the court to void the judgment because the judge, Justice Peter Obiorah who wrote and delivered it, did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal.

    Olanipekun noted that “the judge, who did not sit, came to write the leading judgment and reviewed the evidence of the February 6, 2019 proceedings where he was absent.

    “Adjudication is like video watching. It cannot be done by proxy. The judge cannot analyse the evidence of a witness, whose demeanor he did not observe. The judgement should be declared a nullity on this ground alone”

    Olanipekun, who said he and some named senior lawyers were at the tribunal on February 6, 2019, faulted the argument by lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP that it was not clear from the record of proceedings, whether or not Justice Obiorah was absent on the particular day.

    He argued that the judge’s failure to sigh at the end of the proceedings on February 6, 2019 was enough evidence to justify the appellant’s claim that Justice Obiorah was absent on the day in question.

    Olanipekun also faulted the tribunal’s cancellation of results in 17 polling units in the state, and noted that the petitioners did not tender any result of the election before the tribunal.

    “If there was no result before the tribunal, the tribunal could not have cancelled what was not before it. Since no single result was submitted and could not have been cancelled,” he said.

    He argued that the tribunal went beyond its powers by annulling results in the 17 polling units in order to justify its the judgement it gave in favour of the petitioners.

    Lawyer to the APC, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), while arguing the party’s appeal, contended that the tribunal was wrong to have allowed the petition, which was incurably incompetent.

    “The 1st and 2nd respondents sought to be declared winner of the election, held on September 22, 2018, which was declared inconclusive. They also asked the tribunal to void the rerun election held on September 27, 2018, because they believed it was unlawful.

    “You cannot say you should be declared a winner on the election that you said was unlawful and void,” he said.

    Olujinmi accused the tribunal of exceeding its jurisdiction when it engaged in amending the petitioners’ reliefs to make them grantable.

    “No tribunal has the jurisdiction to reframe, amend or formulate reliefs for the petitioners.

    “On realising that the reliefs could not be granted, they (members of the tribunal) amended the reliefs and granted it by themselves.

    “We are saying the tribunal has no power to amend a petitioner’s reliefs. The much they ought to do, on realising that the reliefs could not be granted, was to have dismissed the petition.”

    He further faulted the tribunal for holding that the petitioners proved its case of non-compliance in respect of the polling units where it voided results.

    Olujinmi added: “The tribunal was wrong. They cannot use the allegation of non-compliance directed at the election of September 27 against the election of September 22.

    “The tribunal relied on certified true copy of Form EC8A, which they said were dumped on the tribunal. This was what they still relied on to nullify results in the polling units in which they said malpractices were proved. The so called non-complaince did not affect the result of the election,” Olujinmi said.

    He argued that the tribunal went outside its powers and contravened Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act when it engaged in the deduction of votes from the outcome of the election to arrive at the decision it gave.

    Lawyer to INEC, Yusuf Ali (SAN) who argued in similar manner, contended that the tribunal erred in its majority judgment, particularly as regards the issue of non-compliance.

    He noted that the tribunal, having found that accreditation was properly done and that all witnesses agreed that the votes scored were not affected by the omissions noted in some result sheets, ought not to have voided any results.

    Citing Section 134 (b) of the Electoral Act, Ali argued that non-compliance means not compliance with the provision of the Act, not an act of omission on the part of INEC officials, which are not contrary to the provision of the Act.

    Ali also argued that since the tribunal held that the petitioners did not prove over-voting and non-compliance, it ought not to have turned around to void votes in some polling units.

    On the question of why INEC did not call it witnesses at the tribunal, Ali said it was unnecessary because the petitioners did not discharge the burden of prove placed on them by the law to warrant INEC to call fresh witnesses.

    Ali added: “There is no law that said INEC most call witnesses, since the petitioners could not discharge the responsibility of proving their declarative reliefs, there was no need for INEC to have called its own witnesses.”

    Lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) faulted the three appeals and the arguments proffered by Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali.

    Ikpeazu argued that the tribunal was right in its decision to have declared Adeleke and his party as the winner of the election.

    He faulted the argument that Justice Obiorah did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal, arguing that there was no sufficient evidence to that effect.

    Ikpeazu urged the court to dismiss the three appeals and uphold the judgment of the tribunal.

    Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who argued Adeleke’s cross-appeal, urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and reverse the portion of the judgment, where the tribunal rejected the evidence the petitioners lead in relation to six polling units.

    Ogunwumiju argued that the tribunal wrongly excluded some of its evidence, because while it called 23 witnesses to prove it’s allegation of non-compliance in 23 polling units, the tribunal only upheld 17 where it voided elections.

    Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali argued that the cross appeal was incompetent on several grounds and urged the tribunal to reject it.

    At the conclusion of proceedings that lasted over eight hours, the presiding judge, Justice Sankey said judgments would be reserved till a later date.

    She told parties that the date of the judgment would be communicated to them by the court’s Registry.

    Other members of the court’s five-man panel are: Justices Abubakar Datti Yahaya, Ita George Mbaba, Isaiah Olufemi Akeju and Bitrus Sanga.

  • Appeal Court upholds Fayemi’s election as Ekiti Governor

    …as Judges dismiss suit by PDP, Olusola

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the victory of Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last governorship election.

    A three-man panel of the court, in a unanimous judgment yesterday evening, dismissed the appeal by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Kolapo Olusola, for lacking in merit.

    The court upheld the January 28, 2019 judgment of the Ekiti State Elections Tribunal, which sat in Abuja owing to problem of insecurity in Ekiti State.

    The tribunal had, in its judgment, upheld Fayemi’s victory and dismissed the petition by PDP and Olusola on the grounds that they failed to prove their allegations, among which was that the election was marred by irregularities.

    Justice Stephen Adah, who read the lead judgment, resolved the seven issues identified for determination in favour of the respondents – Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), APC and Fayemi.

    Justice Adah, at the commencement of proceedings, at about 7.05pm, noted that the day was fast spent and elected to read a summary of the lead judgment.

    After announcing that the seven issues were resolved against the appellants, Justice Adah proceeded to uphold the earlier judgment of the tribunal.

    He subsequently dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    Other members of the panel, Justices Tinuade Akomolafe Wilson and Emmanuel Agim, agreed with the lead judgment.

    The proceedings lasted less than 30 minutes.