•We’re confident judiciary won’t fail Nigerians, PDP, LP declare
About 72 hours after it heard and reserved judgement in two appeals filed against the election of President Bola Tinubu, the Supreme Court has fixed today for judgement.
The judgement would draw the curtain on the legal battles relating to the 2023 presidential election.
Both the Peoples Democratic (PDP) presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Mr. Peter Obi, have, again, expressed the confidence that victory would come their respective ways.
Justice John Okoro, who led six other justices of the seven-man panel of the Supreme Court, had on Monday announced that judgement in the presidential election litigations had been reserved. That was shortly after lawyers representing parties in the appeals had identified and adopted their various processes in the appeal.
“Judgement is reserved to a date that would be communicated to parties,” Okoro had held.
A notice issued to parties yesterday indicated that judgement had been fixed for today.
The notice issued by a Registrar of the Supreme Court, Zainab Garba, read in part, “Take notice that judgement will be delivered in the above mentioned matter on Thursday, October 26, 2023, before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, sitting at Law Court District Area, Abuja.”
Although, the apex court has 60 days by law to hear and determine appeals against the judgement of the presidential election tribunal, it fixed judgement within three days of taking the appeals challenging the judgement of the tribunal.
If delivered, the judgement would be coming 10 days before its expiry date of November 5, 2023.
According to Section 285(5)(6)(7) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, a petitioner has 21 days to file his petition against an election from the date election results were announced. While the tribunal is bound to hear and deliver its judgement in writing within 180 days from the date the petition was filed, the apex court has 60 days to do same.
INEC had on March 1 declared Tinubu as winner of the presidential election, while Atiku and Obi subsequently filed their separate petitions on March 21.
The tribunal, on September 6, delivered its judgement thereby, bringing the 60 days expiration date of the apex court to November 5.
The two appeals slated for judgement are those of Atiku and his party, PDP, and Obi and LP.
The third appeal filed by Allied People’s Movement (APM) was dismissed by the Supreme Court during Monday’s proceedings, shortly after the appeal was withdrawn by the party’s lead counsel, Mr. Chukwuma Machukwu-Ume.
The appellants had approached the apex court to ventilate their grievances over the judgement of the presidential election tribunal, which had dismissed their separate petitions against the February 25 presidential election for lacking in merit.
The five-member panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, held that the petitioners could not substantiate their allegations of irregularities, malpractices, and non-compliance with the electoral laws, among others, they levelled against the presidential poll.
Dissatisfied, Atiku raised 35 grounds of appeal wherein he argued that the tribunal erred in arriving at the conclusion that his case was lacking in merit, while Obi presented 51 grounds to prove that the lower court’s judgement was perverse and should be set aside.
During Monday’s proceedings at the apex court, Atiku, represented by Chief Chris Uche, and Obi, through his lead lawyer, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, urged the court to allow their separate appeals and nullify Tinubu’s election.
The respondents, on the other hand, urged the court to reject the two appeals and uphold the judgement of the presidential election tribunal, which affirmed the declaration of Tinubu as validly elected president.
Earlier, Atiku had while moving his application for leave of the apex court to present fresh evidence of forgery against Tinubu, pleaded with the court to look into the matter because of its constitutional and democratic implications.
Uche informed the court that the fresh evidence was crucial to his appeal before the court, adding that the court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain the application and decide on it.
In urging the apex court to grant the application, Uche had submitted that the court should not be preoccupied with whether the application was not properly pleaded or whether it was coming late, but look at it on its merit. He further argued that the fresh evidence was germane to good and credible governance in the country because it was predicated on the issue of eligibility for anyone seeking the highest office in the country.
The fresh evidence Atiku sought to tender was the academic records of Tinubu, which were handed over to him by the Chicago State University (CSU) on October 2.
The 32-page document was released to the former vice president on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, United States of America.
The US court had ordered CSU to release the said documents to Atiku, despite Tinubu’s strident objection, because the court was convinced that they would help Atiku establish his allegation of forgery and lying on oath against Tinubu.
The senior lawyer pointed out that submitting forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was a serious constitutional issue that must not be ignored.
“No matter the time it is brought, the court has a duty to look at it,” Uche had said, adding that the apex court should side step technicality and adopt the principle of substantial justice in this instance.
Responding to the questions on jurisdiction and legality of the documents, raised by one of the Supreme Court justices, Justice Emmanuel Agim, the senior lawyer had maintained that the Court of Appeal was not like other election tribunals that were bound by 180 days. He disagreed that the fact that the deposition took place in the office of Atiku’s lawyer robbed it of any legality, since parties, including Tinubu’s lawyer, agreed to the place of deposition and were present and did not raised any objections.
He pointed out that the deposition was carried out on the orders of a United States District Court and was as such valid.
On why CSU did not issue a letter disclaiming the certificate Tinubu presented to INEC, Uche explained that the institution might have considered deposition better than a written letter, adding that the issuance of two conflicting letters on the issue by the institution necessitated the deposition.
The senior lawyer argued that the Supreme Court as the custodian of the constitution should admit such evidence and invoke Section 137 of the constitution to deal with the issue in place of technicalities.
Uche argued regarding the Supreme Court, “As a Court of Policy, Nigerians are looking up to this court to look at the fresh evidence and come up with a conclusion that would set the country on the path of credible governance.
“This court must jettison technicalities to do substantial justice to the instant case. The elapse of the 180 days cannot and should not tie the hand of the Supreme Court in doing justice on matters affecting the highest office in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
He maintained that Tinubu was not constitutionally qualified to contest the election at the time he did and that the Supreme Court must be courageous enough to disqualify him accordingly.
However, the respondents, in adopting their replies, urged the court to dismiss the application for lacking in merit.
But lead counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud, pointed out that all election tribunals were established by Section 285 of the Constitution and the Court of Appeal was not exempted, as it was bound by the 180 days for the hearing and determination of election petitions.
Similarly, Tinubu’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, while aligning with the submission of INEC on jurisdiction, pointed out that the deposition Atiku sought to present before the court was not admissible even in the US. Olanipekun explained that for it to be admissible, the deponent would have to come before the court to adopt the deposition.
Besides, Olanipekun, while submitting that INEC ought to have been a party at the deposition, argued that the issue was at large, as the court would not know where to place it within the petition or arguments of the appellants.
Equally responding, All Progressives Congress (APC), through its lead counsel, Chief Akin Olujimi, urged the apex court to dismiss the application on the grounds that the applicant ought to have started at the very court trying the matter.
At the end of adoption of processes, Okoro announced that judgement had been reserved in the two appeals.
In dismissing the appeal of APM, Okoro drew the attention of Machukwu-Ume to the fact that what he was asking of the apex court was to “redo what we have done”, as the court had earlier resolved the issue some months back, even before hearing commenced at the tribunal.
While stating that the apex court was not bound to hear every appeal brought before it, the presiding justice stated that the senior lawyer ought to have withdrawn the petition at the tribunal when he was confronted with the apex court decision on the matter.
APM, in its petition, had sought the disqualification of Tinubu on grounds of alleged unlawful and double nomination of his vice presidential candidate.
APM argued that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the February 25 presidential election, having violated the provisions of Section 142 (1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
We Are Confident Judiciary Won’t Fail Nigerians, Say PDP, LP
Atiku and Obi once again declared they were confident of victory.
Speaking with newsmen in Abuja, National Legal Adviser of Labour Party (LP), Kehinde Edun, said, “We are expected to win. Which law says that the Supreme Court should not listen to fresh evidence? Once you have a compelling fresh evidence, as we have, the Supreme Court is bound to accept it.
“It is part of the Supreme Court rules to accept fresh evidence when there is the need for it. This is the law of the land and cannot be refused or rejected this time around.”
The LP legal adviser stated, “Nigerians are confident that the judiciary, being the last voice of Nigerians, justice shall prevail.
“We won the election. Labour Party is not thinking that the decision of Supreme Court to deliver judgement is because of the FBI report.”
Edun explained that the FBI report had nothing to added or include in the petitions before the apex court, saying what is to be added as evidence has been added to enable the justices of the Supreme Court do justice to the issues at hand.
Similarly, PDP, in a statement by it National Publicity Secretary, Hon. Debo Ologunagba, said the party believed that “issues of the February 2023 presidential election; the barefaced violation of rules and the laws, the brazen manipulations and falsifications in perversion of the electoral process, have put democracy in a precarious situation”.
Ologunagba said Nigerians and, indeed, the whole world, “Look forward to the Supreme Court for justice in the hope that the court will apply the laws, including the express provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2022, and INEC Guidelines and Regulations in delivering substantial justice in the matter.”
According to the PDP spokesperson, “The earnest expectation of Nigerians and lovers of democracy across the world is that the Supreme Court will use this case to firmly validate the maxim that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man.”
Ologunagba said Nigerians were optimistic in hoping that the Supreme Court would dispense substantial justice according to law and fact in the appeal.
