President Muhammad Buhari
Buhari
President Muhammad Buhari
Buhari Does Not Need to Present Certificates for
Election…Says Tribunal
… Dismisses Atiku ‘s Petition.
The Presidential Elections Petition Tribunal has held that
President Muhammadu Buhari is not required by law to attach
photocopy of certificates before he could stand for election
conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission
INEC.
The tribunal held that all Buhari required to do is to be
educated up to secondary school level.
Delivering judgment in the petition filed by the Presidential
candidate of the People Democratic Party Still Abubakar against the
declaration of Buhari as winner of the February 23 Presidential
poll. Chairman of the tribunal Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba said
that Buhari having been educated up to secondary school is not only
qualified for the election but eminently eligible to have
participated
Justice Garba in the unanimous decision of the 5-man panel
therefore dismissed the joint allegations of Atiku and PDP that
Buhari was not eligible for the poll and ought not to have been
returned winner of the election.
Specifically, the tribunal held that Buhari does not need to
show prove or attached copy to his INEC form 001.
The tribunal chairman held that the provision of the law was for
the president to be educated up to secondary school level or its
equivalent or worked in the public or private service for at least
10 years without blemishes.
The tribunal said evidence abound that West African School
Certificate (WASC) was in existence in 1961 when Buhari claimed to
have sat for the examination.
Tribunal also resolved that there is overwhelming evidence on
the existence of provincial secondary school in Katsina in 1961
before it later transformed into government college.
Quoting a press statement released in 2014 by brigadier general
Olaleye Olaniyi, the then secretary of Army Board on Buhari’s
certificate issue, the tribunal held that Atiku failed to call the
army spokesman to testify in the petition.
Justice Garba held that from the totality of the statement of
the former army spokesman, there was a presumption that Buhari has
certificates because the army itself produced a recommendation of
the former principal of the Katsina provincial secondary school
that the president stood for six subjects in WAEC and expressed
optimism Buhari would perform well if enlisted into the army in
1962.
The tribunal therefore agreed that the inability of Buhari to
attach photocopies of his credentials to the INEC form CF 001
should not be misconstrued as not having certificate because the
petitioners failed to prove that he did not have the
certificate.
On the issue of alleged lying on oath the tribunal disagree with
the petitioners on the grounds that Buhari did not swear to an
affidavit to specifically make claim of depositing his certificates
with the army board as envisaged by the relevant laws on
election.
Specifically, the tribunal held that the fact that Buhari made
claim of submitting his credentials to the army at the point of his
enlistment in 1962 cannot by law translate into lying on oath as
alleged by the petitioners.
The tribunal which delved extensively on the merit and otherwise
of Atiku’s petition rejected the claim that Buhari was not duly
elected by majority of lawful votes cast in the February 23
presidential election.
The tribunal held that the petitioners ought to use polling
booth by polling booth to give correct and authentic final election
results, adding that it was not enough for Atiku and PDP to have
tendered election results from the bar only but it is incumbent on
them to call witnesses to establish their allegations, adding that
the 62 witnesses called by the petitioners did not disprove forms
EC8A, EC8B, EC8C and EC8D.
Justice Garba said that when words of statute are not ambiguous
they must be given their ordinary meaning, adding that in the
instant case Atiku and PDP did not establish how the use of INEC
election manual and guidelines substantially affected the collation
of election results as evidence adduced by petitioners’ witnesses
have no bearing on the petition itself.
The tribunal held that the evidence that election results were
altered, depleted and manipulated against the PDP’s candidate was
caught by section 37 of the Evidence Act as they are manifestly
unreliable hearsay that cannot in any way be classified as expert
opinions
In the resolution of server issue the tribunal said that the
petitioners were to establish the existence of a server and that
results were transmitted into it through the use of smart card
reader.
The tribunal also held that the petitioners could not adduced
concrete evidence that the results of the election were
electronically collated and transmitted as alleged by the
petitioners, adding that the evidence of the petitioners expert
witness contradicted the petition itself because the witness
admitted obtaining his information from a whistle blower site,
whose identity he could not ascertain.
One the issue of over voting, massive rigging, harrassment and
intimidation, arbitrary arrest, the tribunal held that failure to
join the security personnel alleged to have committed the crime as
respondents to defend themselves was fatal to the petition
Justice Garba in the unanimous decision held that any decision
to look into the allegations will run counter to section 36 of the
1999 constitution on fare hearing.
In the final analysis the tribunal chairman held that the
petition was without merit, liable for dismissal and was
consequently dismissed in its entirety without cost against the
petitioners.