Tribunal judgment: We ‘ve proved Buhari has no certificate – Atiku

* Expresses confidence of victory, calls for substantial
justice

As tension mounts ahead of the judgment to be delivered by the
presidential election petition tribunal, the candidate of the
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the February 23 election, Atiku
Abubakar, and his party have called on the tribunal to determine
the petition on its merit rather than technicalities.

While calling on the tribunal to ensure substantial justice, the
petitioners insisted that President Muhammadu Buhari was not
qualified to have contested the election and as such should be
disqualified by the tribunal.

One of the senior lawyers in Atiku’s legal team, Chief Mike
Ozekhome (SAN), said it was the expectation of his client “that the
judiciary, as the last hope of the common man, will be dauntless in
addressing the substance of the petition by the peoples’ candidate,
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, in the collective quest to retrieve a stolen
mandate through the legal process.

“We have made a solid case before the panel. Our client, Alhaji
Atiku Abubakar, has also presented his case supported by credible
evidence. We had presented incontrovertible evidence to show that
our presidential mandate was stolen. Every Nigerian now looks on to
the judicial officers for justice.

“Nigerians are waiting and hoping that the judiciary will have
the courage to do justice in the presidential election
petition.”

Recalled that the petitioners had in their final written
addresses said the three respondents to the petition could not
present a credible defense.

Besides, the petitioners equally insisted that they had proved
all allegations contained in their petition against the conduct of
the February 23 presidential election by the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC).

In a 43-page final address filed by their lead counsel, Dr. Levy
Uzoukwu SAN, Atiku, and PDP claimed to have established the fact
that Buhari does not possess the requisite academic qualification
for the position of president.

The petitioners said even Buhari’s own witnesses under
cross-examination admitted to the fact that Buhari does not possess
a school certificate, being the basic requirement for contesting
for the office of the president.

“We, therefore, submit that all the purported evidence led by
the 2nd respondent (Buhari) to prove that he attended a secondary
school or a primary school or that he attended some courses, is
irrelevant because he did not rely on any of those purported
qualifications in exhibit P1, he relied on primary school
certificate, WASC and Officer Cadet (certificates).

“Equally futile is his attempt to prove that he can speak and
write in the English language. That is all irrelevant to his
inability to produce his primary school certificate, secondary
school certificate or WASC and his Officer Cadet qualification,
whatever that means. Officer Cadet is not a qualification or
certificate under the Constitution and Electoral Act, nor is it
known to any law.

On the purported Cambridge University certificate tendered by
Buhari before the tribunal, the petitioners asked why “it was
easier for Buhari to go all the way to Cambridge in the United
Kingdom to obtain a bogus document that his own witnesses said was
not a certificate, instead of just driving down the street in Abuja
to the Army Headquarters or placing a phone call to the Secretary
of the Military Board in Abuja to hurry over with his certificate
or certificates.”

Still on the Cambridge University documents, the petitioners
submitted that, “a comparison of the purported Cambridge Assessment
International Education Certifying Statement of the purported West
African Examination Council (WAEC) certificate and a certified true
copy of the purported confidential result sheet of the University
of Cambridge West African School Certificate of 1961 for the
Provincial Secondary School, katsina revealed many discrepancies in
the supposed result.

“One listed 8 subjects that the candidate therein mentioned one
‘Mohamed Buhari’ allegedly sat for, the other 6 subjects, both
documents are therefore unreliable as both cannot be correct. The
contradiction must count against the 2nd respondent.

Another false claim by Buhari, according to the petitioners is
that he attended, “Elementary School, Daura and Mai Aduwa 1948-52.
Elementary School Daura is totally different from Mai Aduwa, their
locations are totally different. He also claimed he entered Middle
School Katsina in 1953, however, the petitioners submitted that by
1953, the Middle School system had been abolished in the northern
region of Nigeria.”

On the claim that his certificates were with the military, the
petitioners submitted that Buhari failed woefully to prove the
claim, “rather the petitioners’ evidence to the contrary was not
contested nor challenged.

“It is also the case of the petitioners that they have
successfully proved that the Nigerian Army had denied being in
possession of Buhari’s alleged certificates.

“One of the strongest evidence on the issue was given by the
second respondent’s own witness, RW1, General Paul Tafa, (rtd), who
under cross-examination by the 1st respondent (INEC), told the
court firmly and unequivocally that the army did not collect the
certificates of military officers and added, ‘there was no such
thing.”

On the issue of rigging and non-compliance with the Electoral
Act, the petitioners said with the plethora of evidence tendered
and witnesses called, they had been able to show to the tribunal
that Buhari’s election was invalid.

They added that analysis of results from 11 states showed how
INEC in connivance with Buhari and the All Progressives Congress
(APC) wrongly and unlawfully credited Buhari with votes not valid
or lawful.

According to them, documents tendered before the tribunal showed
huge discrepancies between collated results as contained in the
tendered Certified True Copies of forms EC8A and polling units.

They further alleged that a total of 2, 906,384 votes were
cancelled across the country, while 2, 698,773 Nigerians were
disenfranchised.

They said the two figures when added exceeded the 3, 928,869
differential between the votes as stated in INEC form EC8E.

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!