Posted by By GODWIN TSA, Abuja on
The question as to whether the election that brought President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua and Vice President Goodluck Jonathan into power was free and fair would be answered next Tuesday as the presidential election tribunal delivers its judgment.
The question as to whether the election that brought President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua and Vice President Goodluck Jonathan into power was free and fair would be answered next Tuesday as the presidential election tribunal delivers its judgment.
Two presidential candidates of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), General Muhammadu Buhari, and Action Congress, (AC), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who, in their consolidated petitions, challenged the result of the polls had prayed the tribunal to nullify the said election and order a fresh poll.
The petitioners are questioning the outcome of the election on the grounds that it was not conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006.
The tribunal had concluded its public sittings on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 with shocking revelations from Atiku that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) took delivery of the ballot papers meant for the April polls on June 1, 2007, 40 clear days after the conduct of the election.
Atiku had further alleged that the Chairman of the INEC, Professor Maurice Iwu, instructed the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company (NSPMC) to produce ballot papers without serial numbers and photographs.
After taking arguments canvassed by counsel to all the parties in the petitions, Chairman of the tribunal, Justice James Ogebe, adjourned indefinitely to deliver judgment on the petitions.
Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN), Emeka Ngige (SAN), Amaechi Nwaiwu (SAN), Wole Olanipekun (SAN), and Rickey Tarfa (SAN), who represented parties in the suit have expressed satisfaction about the date for delivery of judgment.
Buhari had, in the final address, said the voter's register used for the election was so irregular 'that even photos of children featured in many documents."
He claimed that he had established beyond reasonable doubt that results in forms EC8D (A) and EC8E were arbitrarily assigned without any election.
His lawyer, Mike Ahamba, stated that he had shown, through different documents, that results were written on different days, including pre-election, and also, most curiously after the result had been announced.
'It is submitted that where the so-called final result contains figures that were said to have arisen before the date of election and even after the so-called final result had been announced, then it would take minimal objectivity to come to a conclusion that the final result was arbitrarily put together," he said.
He urged the tribunal to take cognisance of the evidence that results were in existence before the date of the election and that neither the petitioner nor the 5th and 6th respondents made use of original election documents in the petition, 'which proves that the documents were not made available to the candidate during the electoral process, a fact which this court should take judicial notice of, the same being non-compliance with section 64 (4) of the Electoral Act.
'The extent of damage occasioned by the widespread illegalities and improprieties, and for which the respondents did not offer any explanation whatsoever or even attempt to do so, have rendered the election as being so badly conducted that no electoral benefit is derivable from it by anyone."
He further submitted that non-compliance with several sections of Electoral Act 2006 and total lack of respect manifested by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the conduct of the elections and the total absence of rebuttal, explaining the circumstances under which the documentary illegalities were perpetrated, had pointed a clear direction to the tribunal on the merit of his petition, even if it had stood alone without being consolidated with that of the AC, Alhaji Abubakar.
Professor Iwu responded to the questions posed by Atiku, explaining how the contract for the printing of ballot paper was awarded.
His answers to the questions generated controversy in the disputed election, even as Yar'Adua said Atiku weakened his case by his decision to interrogate Iwu.
In closing his case, Buhari told the tribunal, 'Since the prayers and the reliefs sought in this petition flow directly from the facts of this petition as proved, it should grant them as the petitioner is lawfully entitled to prayers and all the reliefs sought thereupon."
On his part, President Umara Yar'Adua submitted that General Buhari had not proved any case against him, because the criminal allegations made were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
His counsel, Wole Olanipekun, told the court that all the allegations bordered on crime and that the onus was on Buhari to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding that it was an election matter.
He said that it was too late for the petitioner to abandon the criminal aspect at this stage of trial.
The police also said that by the provision of section 215 of the 1999 Constitution, which creates the office of the Inspector General of Police, the police performed their duties on the election date in line with the guidelines of the Police Act.
In the same vein, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), represented by Kanu Agabi (SAN), alluded that the petition was like a tripod, now resting on a single but very weak leg because both the party and Buhari's running mate, Edwin Ume-Ezeoke, had since withdrawn from the suit.
He said that the petition indicated that Ume-Ezeoke enjoyed joint ticket and without him in the suit, nothing could be made out of all issues raised in the petition, stressing that the petition ought not to have been filed in the first place and consequently must suffer a dismissal.
The arguments of both Agabi and Olanipekun (SAN), in respect to Buhari's petition, were similar in that they submitted that the depositions made against the election were only from five out of 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, saying there were no statements in respect of other 25 states in a presidential election.
According to the duo, the states are, Katsina, Abia, Imo, Plateau and Rivers, which they reasoned are not substantial for a petitioner to seek nullification of the election, adding that the depositions made from five states and even from Mbaise Local Government Area, Imo State are inadmissible. They urged he court to dismiss the petition because the petitioner was vague in his submission on othewr states.
Agabi argued that all the irregularities alleged by the petitioner and which must affect the outcome of the election were not attributed to INEC and that the court could not act on the account of the allegation.
According to him, 'the law insists on substantial compliance with the law and not total or absolute compliance. Election is not perfect anywhere.
Our submission is that INEC properly documented the election. Therefore, the allegation that there were malpractices in five states cannot stand because if the ballots are valid for 25 states, then they are valid for 36 states. It is a presidential election we are talking about and this petition must be dismissed."