Abuja - The Nigerian Supreme Court will on Tuesday April 29, begin hearing of the appeals against the election of President Musa Yar’Adua of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), filed by the presidential candidate of the Action Congress (AC) and former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar and presidential candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and former Military Head of State, Maj.-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd).

Atiku and Buhari are seeking to upturn the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, which turned down their request to void the election that returned Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua as winner of the 2007 presidential election.

The tribunal on March 8 dismissed the petitions filed by the two for failing to prove their claim that the election was massively flawed and marred with irregularities. The tribunal, headed by Justice James Ogenyi Ogebe who has since ascended the bench of the Supreme Court, also held that the petitioners failed to show to it how the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2006 substantially affected the results of the presidential polls.

Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s reasoning, Buhari within 48 hours of the decision filed a notice of appeal at the apex court, whereof he raised eight grounds why the Supreme Court should set aside the tribunal’s verdict.

Determined not to leave anything to chance, Buhari raised 20 fresh grounds to buttress his claim that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that there was a burden of proof on the petitioner by virtue of Section 146 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006 to prove that the alleged non-compliance affected the result of the election when there is no such provision in the said section.

In the particulars of error contained in the first Notice of Appeal, Buhari averred that the express provision of Section 146 (1) is for the appropriate party to show that the non-compliance did not substantially affect the result of the election and not that the non-compliance affected the result of the election.

In the 20 additional grounds of appeal to the eight in the first Notice of Appeal, Buhari contended that “the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held thus: the powers of the President of the Court Appeal under sections 284 and 285 of the Constitution is not limited to the practice and procedure of the Court of Appeal in its appellate jurisdiction, it does extend to the power to issue practice directions not only in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, but also in its original jurisdiction under Section 239 of the Constitution.”

The Particulars of Errors read to the above also read: “The Court of Appeal Rules, to which Section 248 of the Constitution applies, are not applicable to the first instance trial of the Presidential Election Petition before the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal is the ‘tribunal’ for the determination of Presidential Election petition.

The only applicable Rule of Court for the first instance trial of the Presidential Election Petition is the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules as provided by Paragraph 50 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006.

There is no provision for the enactment of practice direction in either section 284 or 285 of the Constitution.

In ground 10, he claimed that the Learned Justices erred in Law when they held that the depositions of witnesses filed by the petitioner were incompetent before the Court.

Buhari, in ground 14, stated that “the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when in the lead judgment to which they all concurred it was held: ‘I have looked at the Exhibits before me, particularly Forms EC25, EC40C, and EC40E which are tendered in their hundreds. Form EC25 is Electoral material receipt, Form EC40C is ballot paper account and verification statement, Form EC40E is the tendered ballot statement. The exhibited ballot statements do show that the ballot papers were indeed not numbered serially. They have however, shown the number of ballot papers issued by the relevant electoral officials to each polling units. The petitioner led no evidence to show that any of these entries to the number of ballot papers issued at the polling units, and the number of ballot papers tendered in the units are false. This the petitioner’s agents at the polling units could have ascertained.’

Buhari is insisting that none of the documents proved delivery at any polling station and the majority of the Forms EC25 and EC40Cs ended with Supervisory Presiding Officers (SPOs) and Electoral Officers (EOs).

Click here to read the rest of the story from the Guardian

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed