|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Atiku Abubakar and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Tuesday, approached the Supreme Court in Abuja on a 66-ground of appeal against the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on September 11 which affirmed the election of President Muhammadu Buhari.
The tribunal had dismissed the petition of the presidential candidate of PDP, Atiku, who had sought to upturn Buhari’s election on the grounds that Buhari was not qualified to contest the election, irregularities and partial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
In a unanimous judgment, the tribunal dismissed Atiku’s petition, saying the petitioners could not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The tribunal ruled that Atiku and the PDP failed to make a case in the petition, holding that Buhari is eminently qualified to contest the election.
But in an appeal before the Supreme Court, Atiku and PDP are arguing that the five-man panel led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba erred in law in holding that President Buhari did not need to attach his academic qualification to the form CF 001 submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission to secure clearance to participate in the election.
In ground one of the appeal, the applicants argued that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they relied on “overall interest of justice” to hold that the 2nd Respondent’s Exhibits R1 to R26, P85 and P86 were properly admitted in evidence.
In the particulars of error, the appellant submitted that Exhibits R1 to R26, P85 and P86 were not pleaded by Buhari who is the second respondent in the petition.
He added that Exhibits R1 to R26, P85 and P86 were not frontloaded and that no leave of court was sought pursuant to paragraph 41 (8) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to receive Exhibits R1 to R26, P85 and P86 in evidence.
In ground two, the appellant submitted that the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that “Section 76 of the Electoral Act is clearly inapplicable to the issues under consideration” and that “the form referred to are the form to be used in the conduct of the election as FORM CF001 had been taken care of in Section 31 of the Electoral Act and the said FORM CF001 is tied to the steps laid down in the said Section 31 of the Electoral Act”.
The appellant also argued that the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that “the law is firmly settled that a candidate is not required by the Constitution or the Electoral Act to attach his certificates to FORM CF001 before the candidate can be considered or adjudged to have the requisite educational qualifications to contest election”.
In the particulars of error, the appellant submitted that the Court gave restrictive interpretation to Section 76 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) in order to exclude Form CF001 from its provisions.
“The conduct of election by INEC which is 1st Respondent starts with the screening of candidates. No candidate can be screened unless he completes Form CF001 (Exhibit P1). In Form CF001, under the column for ‘Schools Attended/Educational Qualification with dates’, there is the clear provision: ‘ATTACH EVIDENCE OF ALL EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS’. Certificates are evidence of educational qualifications,” the appellant argued.
In ground three, Atiku claimed that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that “the reasonable inference or plausible meaning attachable to the above provision of Electoral Act 2010 as amended is that a candidate can list information concerning evidence of his qualifications or other relevant information(s) about himself” and that “the demand or information required in FORM CF001 cannot be more or higher than the statutory requirements”.
In the particular of error, the appellant submitted that “Form CF001 is designed to take care of the provision in section 31(2) of the Electoral Act (as amended) regarding the ‘list or information’ a candidate is expected to submit and verify by an affidavit”.
In ground four, Atiku equally submitted that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that “there was/is no pleadings in the petition to the effect that 2nd Respondent’s failure to attach his certificates to Form CF001 amounts to lack of educational qualification to contest the election”.
In ground five, the appellant argued that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to consider and apply the recent case of A.A MODIBBO v MUSTAPHA USMAN AND ORS, an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Appeal No SC/790/2019 delivered on 30th day of July, 2019, cited and relied upon by the Appellants wherein the principles enunciated therein have direct bearing on the Petition.
In the particulars of error, the appellant submitted that “in the above judgment, the Apex Court in clear and unequivocal terms stated the meaning and standard of proof of ‘false information’”.
“By the above decision, the Petitioners were only required to prove that any of the information in Exhibit P1 was contrary to truth or fact that is to say untrue simpliciter.
“In reviewing the Appellants’ case, the court below referred to the said judgment of the Supreme Court five times but failed to consider and apply same.
“The judgment considered ‘false information’ in relation to the contents of Form CF001 verified on Oath and the definition of ‘false’.
“By the principle of stare decisis, the court below was under an obligation to consider and follow the principle of law enunciated therein relevant to the issue of the non-qualification of the 2nd Respondent canvassed by the Appellants. The lower court failed to do so and no reason was given,” the appellant argued.
FELIX OMOHOMHION, Abuja
