Atiku: Can the Supreme Court Change Anything?
Chuks Okocha interrogates some of the grounds of appeal by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar
From 1979 till date, the Supreme Court has never delivered any judgment against an incumbent president in any post electoral contest, no matter the grounds of appeal. The closest the apex court has reached was in 2007, when in Four/three split decision was reached in the presidential election petition by General Muhammadu Buhari against President Umaru Yar’adua. But that does not mean that the apex court cannot give judgment if and when presented with incontrovertible evidence by the appellant against the respondent.
This can only be done when the appeal by the PDP and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is juxtaposed against the evidence and cross appeal of the respondent, President Buhari
A close perusal and scrutiny of the first ground of appeal has to do with the documents relating to the educational qualifications of President Buhari as tendered by him and admitted by the court as exhibits.
Citing the relevant provisions of the electoral act, the appellants ( PDP and Atiku/Obi) contended that neither were the documents pleaded by President Buhari nor frontloaded as legally required and as such could not have been deemed as properly admitted by the court.
On this ground, Atiku and the PDP argued that the Court of Appeal erred in law, when it relied on the phrase “overall interest of justice” to admit the documents and relied on it.
On another ground, there are errors raised by the appellants ( PDP and Atiku/Obi) against the judgment of the presidential election petition court, involving the interpretation of the INEC form in section 76 of the electoral act 2010 as amended.
The court had held that the forms referred to in the section had to do with that used in the conduct of elections and not the form (CF001), which every candidate must fill.
Here, Justice Garba also held that a candidate was not required by the constitution and the electoral act to attach his certificates to the form before he could be adjudged to possess the requisite qualification to contest.
But Atiku and the PDP in their appeal argued that the court erred in law as the said form CF001 clearly provides a column for schools attended and educational qualifications with dates. Furthermore, in their submission, they contended that the form also contained a clear provision, written: “attach evidence of all educational qualifications”
In the particulars of error, the appellants ( PDP and Atiku/Obi) highlighted that the conduct of election starts with the screening of candidates and that no candidate could be screened without completing the form CF001, and that certificates were evidence of educational qualification.
The Supreme Court has also been invited to review the conclusion of the presidential election petition court, where it held that the petitioners did not plead that President Buhari’s failure to attach his certificates amounted to lack of qualification to contest the election.
Referring to paragraphs 388- 405 of the petition, Atiku and the PDP argued that they had pleaded and proven the allegation that President Buhari gave false information of a fundamental nature to INEC.
They further brought to the attention of the apex court, a recent judgment it delivered on the 30th of July, where the apex court interpreted the meaning and standard of proof of false information in the case involving AA Modibbo and Mustapha Usman, where the Supreme Court sacked a serving member of the House of Representatives.
Citing the legal principle of stare decisis, the appellants ( PDP and Atiku/Obi) contended that the Justice Mohammed Garba-led presidential election petition court failed to consider and apply the Supreme Court authority but merely referred to it.
Atiku and the PDP also submitted that the court of appeal’s conclusion was speculative, when it inferred that President Buhari presented his certificate to the army for documentation based on his army form 199a.
Their argument here is that, Justice Garba’s court did not rely on evidence led but by assumptions and presumptions that President Buhari possessed the certificates he claimed. They have argued that commonsense held no role in proof of facts before a court, insisting that President Buhari himself failed to produce any single certificate in support of his claim.
The PDP and Atiku/Obi also described the lower courts position that President Buhari was “eminently qualified” as gratuitous and unsolicited.
The appellants ( PDP and Atiku/Obi) further submitted that the Court of Appeal made a case for President Buhari in which none of his lawyers made, when it referred to a newspaper publication to validate his qualification.
The apex court has also been invited to review the position of the Appeal Court that the petitioners dumped their exhibits on the issue of unlawfulness of votes without calling their makers to testify.
Atiku and the PDP have argued that the exhibits tendered before the lower court were certified true copies of electoral documents, and being public documents, there was no need to call the makers.
The prayers by the appellants ( PDP and Atiku/Obi) was that the Court of Appeal’s decision should be set aside, and that the apex court should declare Atiku winner or in the alternative nullify the February 23, 2019 Presidential Poll and Order for a fresh election
A similar issue to the PDP appeal to the apex court is the Election Petitions Tribunal in Adamawa State, which sacked two APC lawmakers for certificate forgery. Of particular interest is that of Musa Bororo, a member representing Mubi South constituency for bearing three inconsistent names.
The tribunal accused him of using three names, Musa Umar Bororo instead of “Musa Umar” which is the official name in the documents he submitted to INEC.
This is contrary to the judgments of the 2019 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, which held that, Mohamed Buhari was the same as Muhammadu Buhari, though inconsistent with the affidavits he submitted to INEC and names of the President in his form CF001.
But the APC in a counter appeal also wanted the court to remove at least 42 paragraphs from the PDP’s documents. The request made by the APC was similar to an initial request brought by the party, challenging the PDP’s petition at the tribunal.
With these, fingers remain crossed pending the determination of the case by apex court, in whom Atiku now rests all of his hope with 70- point grounds of appeal.