Cabal sabotaged judiciary – Atiku Nigeria must move on – Buhari
held that the appeal lacked merit and therefore dismissed it.
The court’s decision came less than an hour after counsels for the parties had adopted and adumbrated their processes.
Justice Mohammed, who gave the lead judgment, said the apex court took two weeks to review all the arguments advanced by the contending parties, adding that the reasons for their decision to throw away the appeal by Atiku would be given at a later date.
Other members of the panel were: Justices Bode RhodesVivour, Olukayode Ariwoola, John Inyang Okoro, Amiru Sanusi, Ejembi Eko, and Uwani Abba Aji. They all agreed with the lead judgment.
I remain unshaken
Atiku also said yesterday that he will continue to fight for Nigerians and the survival of democracy despite the Supreme Court judgment.
In a statement by his Special Adviser on Media, Mr. Paul Ibe, he argued that the judgment was part of the democratic challenges Nigeria was facing as a country, adding that it was left for Nigerians to judge whether justice was truly done at the Supreme Court.
“It is said that the Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible, but that it is infallible because it is final. While I believe that only God is infallible everywhere, and only Nigerians are infallible in our democracy, I must accept that the judicial route I chose to take, as a democrat, has come to a conclusion.
“As a democrat, I fought a good fight for the Nigerian people. I will keep on fighting for Nigeria and for democracy, and also for justice.
“The Nigerian judiciary, just like every estate of our realm, has been sabotaged and undermined by an overreaching and dictatorial cabal, who have undone almost all the democratic progress the Peoples Democratic Party and its administrations nurtured for 16 years, up until 2015.
“When democracy is rolled back, the economy, the society and the judiciary will not be far behind. Today, the nail has been put on the coffin and the gains we collectively made since 1999 are evaporating, and a requiem is at hand,” he said.
“In a democracy, you need a strong judiciary, a free press and an impartial electoral umpire. Nigeria has none of those three elements as at today. One man, one woman, one youth, one vote, should be the only way to make gains in a democracy. And when that is thwarted, the clock starts to tick.
“To those who think they have broken my spirit, I am sorry to disappoint you. I am too focused on Nigeria to think about myself. I gave up that luxury 20 years ago. The question is not if I am broken. The question is if Nigeria is whole?,” he said in the statement.
On his part,
President
Buhari said it is time Nigeria is afforded the right to move on in the interest of all Nigerians regardless of how they voted after the final legal bid before the highest court.
He said this in a statement issued yesterday in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, by Garba Shehu, his Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity.
He thanked Nigerians for the mandate given to him to run the affairs of the country for another four years.
Buhari thanked the former vice-president and his party for undertaking their campaign through protestations to the courts, saying they had conducted themselves in line with the laws of the country they sought to lead.
“The government - and people of Nigeria - have been aware that the result of the February 23, 2019, presidential election has been settled some eight months now.
“President Buhari was reelected by an absolute majority of 55.6 per cent of the national vote, with Nigerians casting nearly four million more votes for President Buhari than his nearest challenger representing a margin close to 15 per cent of the total vote,” the statement said, adding that the elected president and his government would focus solely on addressing the issues that concern the country.
How Supreme Court sealed Atiku’s fate
Earlier, the Supreme Court panel had ruled that its decision in the main appeal will abide on the seven other interlocutory appeals filed by Atiku and the cross appeal filed by the APC.
Atiku’s counsel, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN) had urged the court to allow all the briefs in the appeals to be adopted and for the court to take its decision on the matters at the end.
However, counsels for Buhari, INEC and APC, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Yunus
Ustaz Usman (SAN) and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) agreed that the main appeal should be heard and its judgment should abide on all the other appeals.
Speed of judgment shows weakness of appeal - Prof Yadudu
A professor of law, Auwalu Yadudu (SAN) said there was nothing unusual or illegal about the decision of the apex court to deliver its judgment the same date it heard the matter, adding that it only showed the weakness of the appeal.
He said: “An appeal against the decision of a tribunal is one that can be disposed of mainly on the pleadings that the parties have made.
“If the Supreme Court wasted no time in hearing and dismissing the appeal, the conclusion one will reach initially is that it is not unusual; it is not illegal and it does not violate any provision because of the reason that they don’t have to call witnesses and everything they will rule on will be based on the pleadings of the parties.
“Technically speaking, it (the speed) speaks volume of the weakness of the appeal itself; the fact that they (judges of the Supreme Court) do not think that they needed to waste time on it. So, one will await to hear the reasons why they came to the conclusion; a detailed and more informed analysis of the judgment will be based the reasons they have given.”
Decision not unusual Falana
Constitutional Lawyer Femi Falana also said the decision of the Supreme Court to deliver judgement on the day of hearing of the appeal “was not unusual.”
He, however, said he would give his opinion about the judgment when the court gives its reasons for dismissing the case.
“I will comment on the judgment when the court gives its reasons. What they did was not unusual. They did the hearing today and delivered judgment today. It is only the Supreme Court that does that,” he said.
Falana said there were precedents where the Supreme Court heard an appeal and gave judgment same day.
APC, PDP react
In its reaction, APC yesterday enjoined PDP and Atiku to jettison their “destructive and disruptive agenda” against Nigeria, which the party said they had made up their minds to pursue for the next four years.
“Democratic politics cannot be practiced in the state of anarchy and confusion which the PDP and Atiku wish to achieve. Such diabolic plan will definitely fail,” APC National Publicity Secretary Malam Lanre Issa-Onilu said in a statement.
On his part, PDP National Chairman Prince Uche Secondus said though the Supreme Court had dismissed their petition, the final judgment came from God almighty.
He stated that Nigeria was “in such an untidy state that only God can bail it out.”
In a statement by his media aide, Ike Abonyi, Secondus urged Nigerians to remain resolute in their prayers to God.
He commended Nigerians of all divides for their commitment and support to the party and to democracy.
“Nigerians know that you voted PDP, even APC knows that you rejected them on February 23, 2019. The international community knows you voted for PDP. If the Supreme Court of seven justices says otherwise, leave it to God, the ultimate Judge,” he said.
Senate President Ahmad Lawan said the verdict of the apex court had removed whatever doubt might have been raised on the integrity of the last presidential election.
A national leader of the APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, said “the rule of law conclusively affirmed the collective voice of the people by dismissing the petition filed by the PDP and Atiku. The sun rose high in the Nigerian sky today to shine its light over the entire land.”
The Northern Governors Forum in a statement by its chairman, Simon Bako Lalong of Plateau State, stated that the affirmation of the mandate by the Supreme Court had cleared the path for the president to settle down in taking Nigeria to the next level without any distractions.
Issues raised in the appeal QUALIFICATION Uzoukwu:
No pleading on record that President Muhammadu Buhari is the same person as on his certificate which stated Mohamed Buhari.
Olanipekun: That Atiku was only making a difference without a distinction by making a mountain out of a mole hill; that a witness testified that President Muhammadu Buhari was the same as Mohamed Buhari.
Fagbemi: That the alleged discrepancy between Muhammadu and Mohamed was not mentioned in the petition filed by Atiku.
CERTIFICATE Uzoukwu:
Buhari did not submit any of the three certificates he claimed in Exhibit P1 (INEC form) and he did not give any reasons as to why he could not submit them.
Olanipekun:
That the constitution does not mandate that any candidate for presidential election must attach certificates to the forms submitted to INEC.
That whoever approaches the court with the issue of qualification must do so by presenting evidence to prove it; that no such evidence was presented by Atiku.
Fagbemi: SERVER Uzoukwu:
That INEC transmitted the results to a general server which results allegedly revealed that Atiku won the election. That INEC failed to establish where they store card reader data and PVCs data since they (INEC) claimed not to have the said server.
Usman:
That Atiku failed to call witnesses from all 191,000 polling units to prove his claim that he won the election. That Atiku and PDP did not prove that INEC has the particular server through which they claimed the results were transmitted.
Olanipekun: That assuming but not conceding that there is even a server, under the Evidence Act, such server will qualify as a public document which ought to have been tendered but was not.
That the claim was with so much unreliability that the court below had no difficulty in rejecting it.
Fagbemi: