The dispute arising from the February 25 presidential poll was finally laid to rest Thursday as the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by a seven-member panel of Justices, affirmed the election victory of President Bola Tinubu.
The apex court in the ruling that was expected by all Nigerians, said it was satisfied that President Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, was the valid winner of the presidential contest.
The apex court got to this having dismissed as lacking in merit, two separate appeals that a former Vice President who was the candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, and his counterpart in the Labour Party, (LP) Peter Obi, filed to challenge the outcome of the election.
The apex court, at a session attended by the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike, the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, Chief of Staff to President Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, Chairman of the APC, Abdullahi Ganduje, his counterparts in the LP and the PDP, Julius Abure and Umar Damagun, respectively, held that it found no reason to set aside the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, which had on September 6, dismissed petitions that were lodged against Tinubu by Atiku and Obi.
Even though President Tinubu was absent from the court, his son, Seyi, witnessed the proceedings. Likewise, neither Atiku nor Obi attended the court session.
Whereas the lead judgement in both appeals was prepared and delivered by Justice Inyang Okoro, other members of the panel- Justices Uwani Abba-Aji, Lawal Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Abubakar Tijjani and Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, took turns to concur with the decision.
While dismissing Atiku’s case in a proceeding that was televised, the panel held that he did not prove that the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), did not substantially comply with provisions of the Electoral Act, in the conduct of the poll.
It held that section 185(1) of the Evidence Act, provided that an election should not be liable to be invalidated, when alleged non-compliance to the law, did not substantially affect the outcome of an election.
The apex court held that evidence contained in Atiku’s record of appeal showed that the Appellants abandoned the duty the law imposed on them to not only prove the alleged non-compliance but to establish that failure of INEC to electronically transmit results of the election through its IReV portal, influenced the final outcome of the presidential election.
The court noted that it had in past judgements, clarified that the election result collation system was not the same as the uploading of results to the IReV portal.
“Where the IReV portal fails, it does not stop the collation process, which up till the last election, was manually done,” the court added.
Nevertheless, the court stressed that INEC’s failure to electronically transmit the results of the election denied the electorate the opportunity to follow the process so as to be able to cross-check the results that were eventually uploaded.
“The truth must be told that the non-transmission of results to the IReV portal may also reduce the confidence of the voting population in the electoral process,” the Supreme Court warned.
It further held that it was in a bid to guarantee the safety of election results, that provision was made for both the hardcopy of results and the electronically transmitted copy to be used for the collation process.
The court noted that aside from results uploaded in the IReV portal, duplicate copies were usually handed to both the police and agents of political parties.
It was the position of the apex court panel that the unavailability of results of the presidential election on INEC’s IReV portal, “for whatever reason”, was not sufficient enough to warrant the nullification of President Tinubu’s victory.
It equally held that Atiku and PDP did not prove that they suffered any miscarriage of justice due to the dismissal of their petition by the PEPC.
Besides, the apex court described as misconceived and misplaced, Atiku’s contention that Tinubu ought not have been declared winner of the presidential election, having failed to secure 25 per cent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja.
The apex court affirmed the decision of the PEPC that the FCT does not have a status that is more special than that of the 36 States of the federation.
It upheld the striking out of the evidence of some of the witnesses who testified for Atiku during the PEPC hearing, adding that most of the witnesses gave “inadmissible hearsay” evidence, as it held that the witnesses who were mainly PDP collation officers, relied on what they were told by their polling unit agents.
The court held that the witnesses, who were not positioned at all the polling units, acted like the octopus by attempting to extend their tentacles everywhere.
“The Appellants did not present any evidence to warrant the interference of the findings of the lower court,” Justice Okoro added.
On the issue that President Tinubu was involved in a drug-related case in the USA that led to the forfeiture of $460, 000, the Supreme Court held that Atiku raised the issue when the Respondents had already filed their processes, thereby denying the Respondents the right to fair hearing.
“The ruling of the lower court is unassailable and this court will not interfere with it,” it held.
The court further held that whereas Atiku alleged that the result that was declared by INEC was not accurate, he, however, failed to put forward his perceived rightful result. It held that the result announced by INEC ought to be presumed correct in the absence of “any rival or alternative result.”
“The figure before us shows that the 2nd Respondent won the highest number of votes and was duly declared winner.”
Consequently, the court resolved all the seven issues that Atiku raised in his petition, against him.
“On the whole, having resolved all the issues against the appellants, I believe there is no merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
“Judgement of the lower court delivered on September 6 is hereby affirmed. I shall make no order as to cost,” Justice Okoro held.
Earlier in the proceedings, the court rejected Atiku’s request to be allowed to tender a copy of President Tinubu’s certificate, which he obtained from Chicago State University, (CSU), in the United States of America, USA.
The apex court held that the constitutionally allowed period for such a document to be admitted in evidence had since elapsed, stressing that section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, expressly gave the PEPC a 180 days lifespan to hear and determine in writing, all petitions that emanated from the presidential election.
According to the apex court, considering that the PEPC, which sat as the court of first instance in the presidential dispute, had since delivered its verdict, no provision of the law would allow the admittance of any other evidence at the appeal stage.
It noted that the 180 days donated to the tribunal by the Constitution, expired on September 17, adding that the Supreme Court no longer had the requisite jurisdiction to admit the document.
“This court cannot do what the trial court is no longer constitutionally permitted to do,” Justice Okoro held, adding that Atiku and the PDP could no longer invoke the provision of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act.
More so, the apex court noted that the issue of forgery which Atiku sought to establish through the proposed fresh evidence, was not pleaded in any paragraph of his appeal.
It was held that the appellants were out of time and could not amend their case since the 21 days allowed for those that were aggrieved with the outcome of the election, to file a petition, had also elapsed.
“It is crystal clear that the additional evidence did not fit into issues for determination in this appeal.
“Therefore, this application is refused and accordingly dismissed,” the Supreme Court held, adding that admitting the evidence was akin to taking the nation back to the dark days when election cases dragged in court.
Atiku had prayed the apex court to admit the fresh evidence which he said would establish that President Tinubu tendered a forged certificate to the INEC, in aid of his qualification to participate in the election.
Meanwhile, the court, in its second proceeding that did not last beyond five minutes, dismissed the appeal that Obi and the LP lodged against Tinubu. The court held that it had already decided most of the issues that Obi raised in his case while determining Atiku’s appeal.
It held that Obi’s appeal would abide by its decision in Atiku’s case.
Nevertheless, the court noted that the only distinct issue that Obi raised in his appeal, was the issue that the Vice President, Kashim Shettima, had double nominations from the APC in relation to the 2023 general elections.
The court held that it had earlier decided the issue on May 26, in an appeal marked SC/CV/501/2023, which was brought before it by the PDP.
“This court cannot allow the matter to be relitigated in this court. There must be an end to litigation. I think this matter should not have come to here.
“The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed,” the apex court held.
It will be recalled that INEC had on March 1, announced that Tinubu of the APC, won the presidential contest, ahead of 17 other candidates that participated in the poll.
It declared that he garnered a total of 8,794,726 votes to defeat his two major rivals, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, who came second with a total of 6,984,520 votes, and Peter Obi of the Labour Party, who came third with a total of 6,101,533 votes.
However, dissatisfied with the outcome of the poll, both Obi and Atiku, alongside their political parties, filed petitions to invalidate it, a legal venture that ended in futility on Thursday.
Comments are closed.