₦airaland Forum

Responding, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), through their lawyers, Prince Lateef Fagbami (SAN) and Yunus Usman (SAN) also asked the Justice Mohammed Garba-led tribunal to dismiss the petition with cost.

According to the ruling party, the petition would create an impression that the president lacks basic educational qualifications.

Fagbemi said: “Those who set the standard for secondary education where called. They came and gave the verdict that what the 2nd respondent has was equivalent to Secondary School Certificate.

“The witness said so, and there was no follow-up on that. They did not say that the certificate was fake or forged.

“The position is that we take him to be a secondary school leaver.”

Responding President Buhari Represented by his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), argued that he was only required to be educated, under the 1999 Constitution.

He urged that the petition challenging his election and his educational qualifications be dismissed by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja.

According to the president, the petition lacked merit and substance.

He said: “The law is well settled and the case-law is crystalized on the point that the 2nd respondent (Buhari) cannot go beyond provisions of sections 131 and 131( of the 1999 Constitution.

“The case-law is replete with decisions of this court on the subject. We cannot amend the constitution.


“We need to make it very clear at this point that the constitution and laws of the land do not expect any certificate to be tendered or attached.”

Buhari, further relying on a recent judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in a certificate scandal case that involved the governorship candidate of the PDP in Osun state, Senator Ademola Adeleke, contended that non-attachment of his certificates was not a valid ground to challenge his participation in the February 23 presidential election which he won.

INEC Lawyer Usman Yunus in his final submission tells presidential election petition tribunal tribunal that " We didn't abandoned our case & runaway or failed 2 call witnesses as claimed by Atiku, Claimed that he extracted evidence from Atiku's witnesses. It is public documents

Chief Fagbemi of the APC also supported the position of the Chief Olanipekun but the INEC counsel, Usman abstained

Dr. Uzoukwu objected and reminded the court that he has seen severally that Chief Olanipekun himself and Festus Keyamo addressing the media and Chief Olanipekun cannot excuse himself from the issue

He told the court that the counsel know their job but that they will never address the press and at the same time reach a conclusion.

He told the court that what Chief Olanipekun is saying is cheap blackmail

Chief Olanipekun now stood up and started criticizing the use of the media to harass the government on the matter.

He told the court that he particularly watch ait network and seriously frowned at the broadcast station

He therefore advised that since judgement is now reserved with the court, that we should allow the court to do their job

Dr. Uzoukwu reminded the court that the 3rd Respondent, the APC did not even provide one witness during trial and therefore cannot justify most of the claims made in his final address

Dr. Uzoukwu reminded the court that if and only if the educational certificates of the 2nd Respondent exist or is with the military as he claimed, as the commander in chief of the armed forces, he can order the military to provide all these documents to the court.

He finally submitted that on that note, the 2nd Respondent does not have any certificate, both in electronic, photocopy, photograph etc.

That there was no defense from all the respondents and urged the court to grant the relief of the PDP and Atiku/Obi that the 2nd Respondent was not qualified ab initio to contest the February 23, 2019 Presidential Election and that the former Vice President and Candidate of the PDP, Atiku Abubakar should be declared as winner of the election

Dr. Uzoukwu also told the court that the 2nd Respondent (Mohammadu Buhari) and his party both failed to provide evidence (certificates) even in their final written addresses.

He said witnesses provided by the 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari) himself further compounded his case when one General Tarfa told the Court on oath that it was not the duty of the military to collect credentials of military officers for save-keeping

He went further to the tell the court that the variations in the names in most of the documents submitted by the 2nd Respondent also speaks volumes.

That in some documents, it reads Mohamed Buhari and in another it’s Muhammadu Buhari and even in the scores.

In the same exams, in some documents, he claimed to have 8 subjects and in another 6 subjects.

Dr. Uzoukwu also reminded the court that the 2nd Respondent relied on the electoral act of 2010 in most of its authorities and abandoned the march 2015 amendments of the electoral act by the former president, Dr. Jonathan

He told the court that in the new amendments to the electoral act, voting was supposed to be determined by the INEC and the guidelines of INEC for the 2019 General Elections also was very clear on this.

And on the server issues, he went ahead defining a server saying that it looks like INEC does not understand what a server is.

He said that a server is simply a storage device that can share data to to other devices.

He also said that INEC should tell the court what and how they used all money budgeted for in the 2018 budget of the commission for the purchase of these devices and training of INEC technical staff.

In adopting his final written address, Dr. Uzoukwu emphasized on the non qualification of the 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari), in the February 23, 2019.

He reminded the court that one of the grounds of petition in an election in both the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria and the electoral act 2010 as amended, submitting false information of a fundamental nature is grievous and that the matter should not be trivialized

During the adoption of the written addresses, counsel to the APC, Chief Fagbemi announced to the court that his client has filed additional authorities citing the ruling of the Supreme Court on Tuesday August 20, 2019.

The PDP lead counsel Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, challenged the eligibility and admissibility of the new authorities filed by the APC since the time for such documents are over and the final written addresses by all the parties had been submitted.

The trial Judge, Justice Mohammed Garba informed him that the court will look into the admissibility of the new authorities from the APC but that the PDP and Atiku/Obi should look into the documents since they have been served and respond accordingly.

Dr. Uzoukwu then went ahead adopting his final written address.

Today All Parties to Petitions at the Election Perition Tribunal sitting at thr Appeal court Abuja.

We present to you the summary of Today's Adoption at PEPT

tuniski:
What you just explained straight as it is, is difficult for buharideens to grasp. By their noisy and condescending statements you know them.

The best is to leave them to their folly.

It's okay to make some noise.

Aince last week after the responses they've been on silent dead wood mode.

At least something to give them fake noise

Afamed:
There is no River in the judgement. It's about Atiku cumming

Pele

You will dey alrigt las las

Afamed:
Engineerboat , Tuniski over to you. I said Atiku is cumming but he came early than expected

Cry me a river.

Usual rants

It's an interlocutory appeal that was struck out, it has nothing to do with the main petition. It's in respect of PDP's appeal against the tribunal's refusal to allow it file a reply to APC's application. The decision will be of no effect even if granted,

The matter (main Petition) at the tribunal is already at the address stage so even if the Supreme Court decides PDP has the right of reply, it would amount to nothing because the tribunal won't go back to that stage, therefore it has been overtaken by events.


STATUTED BARRED


Zombies make una they make noise

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments on an appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, seeking access to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s sever.

The Dattijo Muhammad-led five-man panel is to return later on Tuesday to deliver its ruling on it.

They are by their petition before the Justice Mohammed Garba-led five-man Presidential Election Petition Tribunal challenging the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari at the February 23, 2019 election.


They alleged in their petition that the “authentic” results of the February 23, 2019 election which gave them victory were stored in the said INEC server.

But the tribunal had on June 24, 2019, during the pre-hearing session on the petition, dismissed their application for permission to be allowed access to the server, which INEC had denied its existence.

The tribunal, in dismissing the petitioners’ application, held that granting the request would amount to pre-judging the main‎ issue that was meant t be trashed at the substantive hearing in the case.


Leading the petitioners’ argument in their appeal challenging the June 24, 2019 ruling of the tribunal, on Tuesday, Mr. Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), told the apex court that his clients were still within time to access the server and make use of the evidence to be extracted from it.

He said the 180 days meant for the tribunal to hear and determine the case had not lapsed.

But the respondents, INEC, President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress, opposed the appeal through their respective lawyers and urged the apex court to dismiss it.


While INEC was represented by Yunus Usman (SAN), Buhari was represented by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), and APC by Chief Charles Edosomwan (SAN)‎.

They maintained that granting the prayer sought by the appellants would be of no utility value as the presentation of evidence at the tribunal had closed.

The tribunal had fixed Wednesday for final arguments in the case.

https://punchng.com/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pdp-atikus-request-to-access-inec-server

garfield1:
Allow the guy answer for himself.
But asides that,can you give an example of an election petition decided on quality ?

INEC only write what they fe to write.

They dont seem to read this line from 4.42 downward.
INEC scored another own goal again

Iamgrey5:
The Inec stated non of Atiku witnesses was able to substantiate electoral fraud because they all claimed that voting and tabulation were largely peaceful and conducted properly.

Inaddition, Atiku failed to explain how the sheets he submitted to the petition affected the final results from the states. i.e he might have only selected the results sheets of the polling station he won to propagate falsehood.

The only thing Atiku's witnesses were able to raise was the issue of a central sever, which is not backed by any constitution.

So there's no case against the INEC.

Seem you dont even read atiku case

Doyin2:
It seems either you have comprehension challenges or up to some mischief.

Read INEC's submission again:

" "Thereafter, the petitioners proceeded to break down this allegation State by State.

“However, a cursory appraisal of paragraph 155(4) of the petition dealing with this allegation of ‘posting wrong results’ to the non-existent 1st Respondent’s server and not the wrongful entry of the results in the physical /manual Form EC8 series.

“The most astonishing part is that the petitioners failed to call witnesses who were at the various Units to observe these various alleged anomalies."

Borrow a glass read, and stop allowing INEC and APC to use yoyr head

tuniski:
This is too watery an address to counter the compelling case of the petitioners.

Something for zombies to salivate over.

So watery

Hear this shameless fools.

“The constitution is clear on this as it states the requirement for a candidate to contest the presidential election and occupy the office of the president.

“Section 131(d) provides that a person shall be qualified for election into the office of the president if he or she has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.

“More so, the consequence of submitting a forged document to INEC is grave.

“It, therefore, requires precise evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which the petitioners have not been able to establish,’’ the respondents said.

APC if all your response is this then start packing your load

Buhari, APC urge tribunal to dismiss Atiku, PDP’s petition on technicalities, evidential grounds


President Muhammadu Buhari and the APC have urged the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal to dismiss the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar, challenging the February 23 general election on technicalities and evidential grounds.

The prayers formed the gamut of other requests contained in both Buhari and APC final addresses to be adopted on August 23 made available to News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Sunday in Abuja.

The respondents had described Abubakar’s address that urged the tribunal to sack Buhari and affirm him (Abubakar) president, as a “wild goose chase prayer’’.


They alleged that PDP erroneously allowed a candidate who was not a Nigerian by birth to contest the highest position, adding that such was an adventure that violated the provision of the Constitution.

The president and his party, therefore, prayed the tribunal to invoke Section 131 (a) of the constitution to dismiss the petition.

NAN reports that section 131 (a) of the constitution strictly holds that a person must be a citizen of Nigeria by birth to qualify to contest the office of the president.

They noted that Atiku was born on November 25, 1946 in Jada, a former Adamawa Province of Northern Cameroon before a plebiscite was conducted in 1961 that now made the enclave part of Nigeria.

The parties, therefore, alleged that Abubakar was not qualified to enter the contest as the constitution forbade him from canvassing for votes to become a president.

“We pray that the tribunal will see this constitutional reason and go ahead to uphold the election of the second respondent (Buhari) forthwith,’’ they prayed.

On evidence admitted from the petitions, the two respondents said they were empty as none had substantially proven series of the allegations made against the conduct of the election.

They explained that none of the 75 witnesses and 31, 287 exhibits which included 48 video clips proved any of the petitioners’ allegations.

They said the petitioners had tried to mislead the tribunal and public that results from the election were transmitted electronically to a central server managed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The respondents noted that it was public knowledge that the February 23 general election was conducted with the Electoral Act of 2010 as amended.

“Moreover, the laws in Nigeria do not recognise but actually prohibit transmission of results electronically.

“Sections 52 and 78 of the Electoral Act 2010 have categorically addressed the issue.

“The only means of transmitting election results under the law are through Forms EC8 series. Form EC8A conveys results from Polling Units.

“It is only through these approved forms that election results can be challenged or proven and not through the server, imaginary or real,’’ they submitted.

The parties, therefore, submitted that the petitioners’ allegation on the use of the server by INEC to transmit results was “criminal and misguided’’.

“Atiku Abubakar and the PDP have failed in their attempt to stridently prove their petition.

“The petitioners failed woefully to establish by credible evidence the existence of the imaginary server belonging to INEC,’’ they argued.

They argued that most of the witnesses presented by the petitioners attested to the fact that they signed all the forms that contained the results of the election without coercion.

Buhari and APC, therefore, averred that such testimonies of truth from the petitioners’ witnesses further bestowed legitimacy on the outcome of the election.

On Buhari’s educational qualification, they said that the petitioners failed to adduce credible and reliable evidence to establish that he (Buhari) indeed forged his certificate.

“While it is appropriate to debunk such baseless, mendacious and spurious assertion, it suffices to bring to fore the unequivocal provision of the constitution.

“The constitution is clear on this as it states the requirement for a candidate to contest the presidential election and occupy the office of the president.

“Section 131(d) provides that a person shall be qualified for election into the office of the president if he or she has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.

“More so, the consequence of submitting a forged document to INEC is grave.

“It, therefore, requires precise evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which the petitioners have not been able to establish,’’ the respondents said.

Drawing reference from the constitution, the respondents defined secondary school certificate or its equivalent to mean: secondary school certificate or its equivalent, or Grade II Teacher’s certificate.

They listed others to include: City and Guides certificate or Education up to secondary school certificate level or Primary Six School Leaving Certificate or its equivalent and Service in the public or private sector in the Federation in any capacity acceptable to INEC for a minimum of 10 years.

“It is apparent that from the pleadings and evidence adduced led by the petitioners; there is no scintilla or iota of evidence to prove that the president was at the time of the election not qualified.

“It is trite that he who asserts must prove, we have clearly seen that the petitioners had failed woefully in this matter.

“In the circumstance, we urge the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds of both technicalities and evidential failure and to affirm the election of the president,’’ they submitted.

NAN reports that the president, who contested the election on the platform of the APC, was announced winner having scored a total of 15 million votes as against Abubakar’s 11,262,978 votes.

NAN further reports that the Justice Mohammed Garba-led five-man panel awaits the parties to adopt their final addresses on August 21 preparatory to judgment.

https://tribuneonlineng.com/buhari-apc-urge-tribunal-to-dismiss-atiku-pdp-petition-on-technicalities-evidential-grounds/

Breaking News:

Presidential Election Tribunal, Abba Kyari in trouble for procuring Fake Cambridge Statement of result for President Buhari

The Chief of Staff (CoS) to President Muhammadu Buhari is trouble for procuring fake Cambridge statement of result in aid of his boss’s defense at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.

One patriotic Lawyer, Mr. Kalu Kalu Agu, Esq., after series of investigations at the prestigious Cambridge university in the United Kingdom, discovered that the said statement of result was fake and has petitioned Mr. Abba Kyari to the Metropolitan Police. The letter with Ref N0; Nr VE261478815GB was received and signed for by T.GAMBLE Esq of the Metropolitan Police at 8.52 am on Friday,16-08-2019

Mr. Abba Kyari, in his desperation to support his boss, employed the services of black marketeers (aka Oluwole), to procure the said fake statement of result (as attached), which was presented to the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal by the lead counsel to the 2nd Respondent, Chief Wole Olanipekun.

During cross examination at the trial, Mr. Kyari confirmed to the court that he personally signed and collected the said fake statement of result on behalf of his boss, President Muhammadu Buhari on the 18th of July 2019, after the conclusion of the Presidential Election on February 23, 2019.

He also confirmed to the court that the purported Cambridge assessment international education certified statement of result was not listed on President Buhari’s Curriculum Vitae he submitted to the 1st Respondent, INEC before the election.

Recall that this same fake Cambridge assessment statement of result was presented to the WAEC Deputy Registrar, Dr. Adewumi, who was Subpoenaed to testify for President Buhari at the Presidential Tribunal, Mr. Adewumi informed the court that he does not recognize the statement of result, even though on the paper, it reads that it was done in collaboration with WASC.

Asked by the Petitioners’s counsel if the statement of result is in tandem with WAEC? He responded that he does not know how and where the document emanated from. That his signature is not on the document and that the document does not carry WAEC authorization.

Iamgrey5:
Oga PDP will also make similar prayer before their closing remark.


It is standard procedure.

Is this there acclaimed robbust response.

Shm

And replaced with what.

CTC collected by Kyari right.

Una no serious

Buhari and his party also asked the tribunal to reject a separate set of 33 documents, which included the Certified True Copies of Form CF001 (personal particulars) submitted by Buhari to the Independent National Electoral Commission as the presidential candidate of his party, other INEC documents and some newspaper reports.

Tuniski,
ChristianNorth

See why This people did mot call witnesses

Buhari, APC want Atiku’s 28,000 exhibits expunged

President Muhammadu Buhari and his All Progressives Congress have asked the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to expunge from its records over 28,000 result sheets of the February 23, 2019 election in 10 states tendered by the Peoples Democratic Party and its candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

They also urged the Justice Mohammed Garba-led tribunal of five judges to reject the testimony of the petitioners’ 40th, 59th and 60th witnesses.

Atiku’s spokesperson, Mr Segun Showunmi, was the 40th witness; David Njorga from Kenya, who was described by the petitioners as their “expert witness,” was the PW 59; while Joseph Gbenga, a data analyst was the PW 60.


Buhari and his party also asked the tribunal to reject a separate set of 33 documents, which included the Certified True Copies of Form CF001 (personal particulars) submitted by Buhari to the Independent National Electoral Commission as the presidential candidate of his party, other INEC documents and some newspaper reports.

Among the 28,428 documents, whose admissibility was being challenged by Buhari and the APC, are 28,395 certified true copies of polling unit, local government, ward and state result sheets of 10 states.


The states are Yobe (1,732 result sheets), Kebbi (2,106), Borno (3,472), Kano (5,806), Bauchi (3,599), Katsina (3,378), Jigawa (3,162), Kaduna (3,335A), Zamfara (eight) and Niger (1,797).

Buhari and the APC prayers, urging the tribunal not to act on the documents, are contained in their separate objections to the admissibility of the petitioners’ documents earlier admitted conditionally as exhibits by the tribunal.

Copies of the filings by the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Buhari and APC) obtained by The PUNCH on Tuesday were filed alongside their separate final addresses in which they urged the tribunal to dismiss Atiku’s petition against Buhari for lacking in merit.


The tribunal had fixed August 21 for parties to present their closing arguments in respect of the petition challenging the victory of Buhari and the APC at the February 23, 2019 poll.

APC’s lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), urged the tribunal to “expunge” the documents from the record of proceedings on the grounds that they were “wrongly admitted in evidence” when they “are legally inadmissible.”

He contended that while some of them “are documentary hearsay evidence that should not have been admitted by the honourable court in the first place,” others were inadmissible on the grounds that they were tendered from the bar despite being disputed by the APC.


On the evidence of the petitioners’ witnesses numbers 40, 59 and 60, Buhari’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), said their testimonies were in violation of the March 6, 2019 order of the tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners’ request to be granted access to an alleged server in which they claimed INEC stored the authentic results of the last presidential election.

Showunmi (PW40) had tendered some video evidence to prove the petitioners’ case of the existence of the server.


Njorga (PW 59) also gave evidence and tendered his report on the existence of the said server, while Gbenga (PW 60) also gave evidence and tendered his report of the analysis of the results of the election in 11 states.

Olanipekun faulted the evidence of the witnesses which he argued emerged “in express violation of a subsisting order of court, same germinates in stark abuse of the process of this honourable court.”

https://www.punchng.com/buhari-apc-want-atikus-28000-exhibits-expunged/amp/

OAUTemitayo:
You go dey alright sir

I'm alright

OAUTemitayo:
Google.com sir

Seems your own certificate is also from WEAC

tuniski:
Keyamo doesn't need to engage in media trial the matter has already been argued at the tribunal.

It is no longer in the hands of the litigants neither the petitioners nor the defendants.

All this media attempt at retrial ain't going to work.

Keyamo had 100% chance to make his defense at the trubunal, why?

He's afraid to lie under oath

But he chicken out as a Senior Advocate of Noise and Nuisance

OAUTemitayo:
A sensible person knows that is a mistake.
But since you are... Yee who slapped me?

Okay then its safe to say you're OAUTemitoya.

Onranu