The Supreme Court is set to bring down the curtain on the legal disputes over the outcome of the 25 February presidential election, as it will, today, Thursday, deliver the final judgement on the two appeals challenging the victory of President Bola Tinubu at the disputed poll.
Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Peter Obi of the Labour Party – the two leading opposition candidates at the election – had filed separate appeals to challenge the earlier 6 September verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court which affirmed Mr Tinubu’s victory.
Today’s verdict will be the final court decision on the disputes over the election. It will mark the end of a two-stage judicial battle, the first part of which was decided by the presidential election court in favour of Mr Tinibu, which was further challenged at the Supreme Court. The court will now give the final say on the validity or otherwise of Mr Tinubu’s election.
Nigeria’s electoral commission, INEC, had declared Mr Tinubu the winner of the election on 1 March.
However, Atiku and Mr Obi, who came second and third, respectively, questioned INEC’s conduct of the polls; as they alleged widespread electoral fraud and the ineligibility of Mr Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima to vie for the presidency.
A five-member panel of the Presidential Election Petition Court headed by Haruna Tsammani adjudicated the suits for three months before dismissing them on 6 September.
The court held that Atiku and Mr Obi failed to prove their separate claims against Mr Tinubu and INEC.
Dissatisfied, the pair headed to the Supreme Court, the final arbiter on presidential election dispute in Nigeria, where they urged the court to set aside the presidential election court decision on account of miscarriage of justice.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court headed by John Okoro heard Atiku and Mr Obi’s appeals on Monday, and set them down for judgement.
At the final hearing of the case on Monday, Atiku’s lawyer, Chris Uche tendered fresh evidence before the Supreme Court to prove his client’s case against the President. The Supreme Court will decide in its judgement today whether the fresh evidence, critical to Atiku’s case, is legally acceptable and can be reviewed as part of evidence submitted by a party.
Specifically, Atiku through his lawyer, Chris Uche, accused Mr Tinubu of forgery concerning the president’s academic records from the Chicago State University.
After a rigorous suit in the United States, Atiku obtained Mr Tinubu’s academic records which he has now filed at the Supreme Court to prove his forgery allegation which was rejected by the presidential election court, against Mr Tinubu.
On his part, Mr Obi’s lawyer, Livy Uzoukwu, urged the Supreme Court to nullify the presidential election court decision and declare Mr Obi the winner of the election.
Also Read: We‘ll be Victorious Tomorrow — Labour Party Declares Ahead of Supreme Court Judgment
However, the president’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, INEC’s lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, and APC’s Akin Olujinmi, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeals and affirm Mr Tinubu’s victory.
The court subsequently fixed Thursday for judgement.
PulseNets’ team is at the Supreme Court to bring you live updates from the crucial proceedings.
LIVE
9:20 a.m.: Members of the Supreme Court panel led by John Okoro file into the courtroom.
9:22 a.m.: Registrar calls Atiku Abubakar’s appeal.
Atiku Abubakar’s lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN), announces appearance.
9:25 a.m : Abdullahi Aliyu (SAN) announces appearance for INEC.
9:26a.m.: A lawyer, Akintola Makinde, from the law firm of Wole Olanipekun (SAN), announces appearance for President Bola Tinubu.
09: 29 a.m.: A lawyer, Olumide Olujinmi, announces appearance for APC.
Court set to deliver judgement on Atiku’s appeal.
9:30 a.m.: The presiding justice of the panel, John Okoro, begins reading the lead judgement on Atiku’s appeal.
9:33 a.m.: Mr Okoro gives a background to the appeal.
9.35 a.m.:The Justice recaps the issues that came up at the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja.
The issues include alleged electoral fraud, President Tinubu’s non-qualification, and non-compliance of the conduct of the disputed election with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
9:38 a.m.: Justice Okoro said on 18 September, Atiku filed a notice of appeal with 35 grounds of appeal, while on 7 October, the respondents filed their reply.
9.39 a.m.: The court is now dealing with the application by Atiku to file additional evidence – the deposition of an official of the Chicago State University.
One of Atiku’s grounds for challenging Mr Tinubu’s appeal was that the president was not qualified to run for office on account of forged academic records.
9:42 a.m.: Justice Okoro recounts Atiku’s legal battle in the US to obtain Mr Tinubu’s academic records from the CSU.
9.47a.m.: The Justice finishes highlighting the 20 grounds on which Atiku anchored the application.
Justice Okoro says Mr Tinubu filed an 11 paragraph counter-affidavit to Atiku’s application to tender a fresh evidence against the president.
President Bola Tinubu’s lead lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, filed a written address against Atiku’s move to bring in new evidence before the Supreme Court against Mr Tinubu.
9.52 a.m.: Mr Okoro says the pivotal question to ask is whether Nigerian laws allow this court to receive and act on this document at this stage.
9:54 a.m: Justice Okoro recalls Chris Uche (SAN), Atiku’s lawyer’s argument regarding the difficulty in obtaining Mr Tinubu’s academic records from the Chicago State University.
INEC lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, had argued that an allegation of forgery is criminal in nature and requires to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal being based on election matter, the implication is that all evidence ought to have been adduced at the trial court and judgement delivered within 180 days, Justice Okoro recalled.
10: 01: a.m: Justice Okoro said, Mr Olanipekun argued that the Supreme Court lacked the power to consider Atiku’s fresh evidence against Mr Tinubu.
The failure to invite the APC and INEC to participate in the court proceedings in the US aimed at obtaining Mr Tinubu’s academic records from CSU, renders the fresh evidence inadmissible, Mr Olanipekun argued in the court’s decision being read by Mr Okoro.
Justice Okoro recalled Mr Olanipekun’s argument in defence of Mr Tinubu.
10.05 a.m.: Justice Okoro begins reviewing arguments on the issue of fresh evidence tendered by Atiku.
He decides to decide the issue from the point of whether or not the court has jurisdiction to accept the new evidence.
The jurisdiction of the court is at the foundation of adjudication, the Justice said.
Jurisdiction clothes the court the power to determine cases, he says.
10.08a.m.: Justice Okoro says jurisdiction is the fulcrum upon which every court decision is based.
Justice Okoro says, I must emphasise that it is trite that election proceedings are their unique class.
This court has to take into account the peculiarity of this case.
I have carefully perused the record of Appeal, he says.
He said Atiku filed the appeal on the last day of the timeframe allowed to lodge an appeal.
The 180 days prescribed by the law lapsed on 17 September, Justice Okoro noted.
10.11 a.m.: Justice Okoro recalled an earlier decision of the Supreme Court which said, “In the circumstance of this case, this court cannot activate section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to admit fresh evidence.”
The application runs foul of 14 of the Evidence Act.
10.15 a.m.: “I still wonder how the appelant intend to use the document in this proceeding,” says Mr Okoro.
The petitioner shall not be allowed to allow to amend their petition after the 21 days allowed by law, the Justice says.
Citiing Section 182 of the Electoral Act, Justice Okoro said, “Atiku failed to apply to the court to amend his petition to bring the fresh evidence” against Mr Tinubu.
10.18 a.m.: It is shocking to have Atiku’s lawyer argue in print that there is no statutory time limit of 180 days for the lower court to decide a presidential election petition.
10.19a.m.: It will be unfortunate to go back to the dark old days when election petitions could be heard up to the point of expiration of the tenure of the person whose election was being challenged, Justice Okoro says of Atiku’s attempt to introduce fresh evidence with a view to extending the time to adjudicate the csae
Consequently, since the Presidential Election court has no jurisdiction to entertain fresh evidence, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to accept fresh evidence, Justice Okoro says.
19.20a.m.: “It has to be noted that the 180 days imposed is immutable and cannot be extended,”Justice Okoro said.
10.23 a.m.: The jurisdiction of this court is donated by the Constitution.
“One wonders what Atiku’s intends to do when none of his grounds of appeal is not hinged on forgery of certificate against Mr Tinubu.”
“Finally, on this application, fresh evidence is not received as a matter of cause.”
10.26 a.m.: Atiku failed to convince the Supreme Court on why he waited until the PEPC concluded the appellants suit and lost jurisdiction before making an attempt to tender the document.
10.29 a.m. The court dismisses the Atiku’s application to tender fresh evidence.
10.30 a.m.: The court now set to deal with the merit of the substantive appeal.
10. 31 a.m.: The court is now dealing with the issue of INEC’s failure to comply with the provision of the Electoral Act by failure to transmit result of the election IReV
A petitioner seeking to nullify an election must show noncompliance substantial affected the election, Justice Okoro said
The appellant abandoned the duty placed on them to prove noncompliance, but relied solely on INEC’s inability to electronically transmit the election results to the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) portal, Justice Okoro said.
The Electoral Act empowers INEC to determine the mode of transmission of election results.
” I agree with the lower court that the failure of INEC to electronically transmit the results does not affect the collation of results,” Justice Okoro said.
10.52 a.m.: The court is now dealing with the issue of 25 per cent of FCT votes.
10.53 a.m.: “To be honest, I see nothing wrong in the above decision,” Mr Okoro says, affirming the decision of the PEPC that Mr Tinubu did not have to win 25 per cent of the votes FCT having polled 25 per cent of the votes in 13 other states of the frderation.
He says a court should give a wholistic interpretation to the constitution. He says such interpretation must be people-oriented.
A narrow and selfish approach should be avoided, he adds.
He says interpretation of law must be such that it will reduce law making to absurdity.
He says he sees merit in the issue as raised by the apellant and dismisses it.
The decision of the PEPC is unasailable, Justice Okoro says.
” I do not see anything wrong with the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court when it interpreted the constitution regarding the issue of 25 per cent in Abuja.
“The interpretation of the constitution should serve the generality of the people.
“Let me drive this matter home.
“Are saying that if a candidate scores majority votes across the country but fails to win the election in the Federal Capital Territory. Can’t the candidate be declared president?”
The next issue is PEPC’s rejection of Atiku’s witness statements on account of not being filed alongside the main petition on 21 March.
“The Electoral Act contains mandatory provisions which make election petitions in a class of their own.”
Rules governor civil proceedings are not the same as election matters. The constitution shows that the time of filing of witness statements is 21 days from the date of declaration of results, the Justuce says.
10.59 a.m.: The appellant had been totally foreclosed from any amendments to the petition which Atiku sought to present before the court, the Justuce says.
11:03 a.m.: It has to be emphasised that the use of the word shall makes it mandatory and conclusive.
An application for extension of time after the filing of a petition is not permitted.
The lower court’s decision to strike out offending witness statements cannot be faulted, Mr Okoro says.
The issue three is resolved against Atiku.
There was no evidence to support allegations of votes manipulation as alleged by Atiku’s agent in Kogi State.
He visited only 20 polling units in the over 3000 polling units in Kogi State.
11:11a.m.: It is impossible for a political party to appoint an octopus agent who will be at every polling unit on election day.
Atiku’s agents can only testify in their polling units only where they witnessed what they saw, but not across the country where they were not present.
” I adopt the decision of the lower court which is in line with a plethora of precedents, Justice Okoro says.
The witnesses’ testimonies were hearsay.
The finding of the lower court in discountenancing the Atiku’s witnesses cannot be be faulted.
11:16 a.m.: The court is ruling on the contention of Atiku that the PEPC struck out some paragraphs of his petition.
The PEPC had held that some paragraphs of Atiku’s petition were imprecise and vague, and consequently struck them out.
11:20 a.m.: The respondents had lost their right of reply when Atiku introduced into his court filings issues bordering on Mr Tinubu’s alleged forfeiture of $460,000 to the US government over trafficking of illicit drugs, the court says.
Indeed by the provisions of the Electoral Act, the law frowns on the introduction of fresh facts or issues.
11:23 a.m I have critically considered the argument of parties concerning the cancellation of results and manipulation of votes and criminal allegations against Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State, Justice Okoro says.
He upholds the decision of the lower court striking out the offending paragraphs of Atiku’s petition.
11: 24 a.m.: The court resolves the issue against against Atiku.
11:27 a.m.: Success or failure in an election depends on votes, Mr Okoro says, restating the decision of the Presidential Election Petition.
11:29: a.m.: I have earlier resolved the issue of transmission of results which is the main thrust of the appellant’s case, he adds.
In this appeal, the issue before us is not about the candidate who score the majority
I am unable to find any figure put forward by Atiku that he scored the majority votes, other than the figures declared by INEC declaring the second respondent (Tinubu) winner of the election.
11:23 a.m.: The votes before us show that the second respondent Tinubu won the election, Justice Okoro says.
11:33 a.m.: Finally, on the issue of use of disparaging words by the lower court on the appellant.
The words of the court were not meant to disparage the appellant, he says.
11:35 a.m.: Having resolved all the issues against the appellant that there is no merit in this appeal.
The judgment of the lower court delivered on 6 September declaring Tinubu president is hereby affirmed, Justice Okoro says.
11:37 a.m.: A member of the Supreme Court panel, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, agrees with the lead judgement declaring Mr Tinubu president.
11:40 a.m.: Another member of the panel, Garba Lawal, agrees with the lead judgement.
He says, the FCT is not elevated to a higher pedestal than other states.
“This court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain Atiku’s request to tender fresh evidence,” he says.
11:44 a.m.: Justice Ibrahim Saulawa also concurs with the lead decision delivered by Justice John Okoro.
11:48 a.m: Justice Adamu Jauro agrees with the decision.
“The appeal is bereft of merit and I agree with the lead judgement.”
11: 49 a.m.: Justice Tijjani Abubakar says, “I find the application without merit and it deserves to be dismissed.
“I find no merit in the substantive appeal and it is hereby dismissed. Parties in the appeal shall bear their respective cost.”
11:51 a.m: Justice Emmanuel Agim too concurs with the lead decision.
“I completely agree with the conclusion and reasoning by my brother Justice Okoro.
The academic record from CSU is inadmissible, he says.
A document from another country cannot be used in Nigeria without being authenticated.
I continue to wonder why the appellant didn’t use the advantage of the court order to obtain a letter from CSU to disclaim the certificate that was presented by the second respondent to INEC, Justice Agim said.
It was obvious to the appellant that his request to introduce fresh was not going to sail through, the Justice said.
11:59 a.m.: Court registrar calls Peter Obi’s appeal for judgement.
12:02 p.m.: Stephen Adehi (SAN) announces legal representation for INEC.
12:02 p.m: Stephen Adehi (SAN) announces legal representation for INEC.
12:05 p.m: Akintola Makinde, a lawyer from Wole Olanipekun’s law firm, announces appearance for Mr Tinubu.
12:07 p.m.: Olumide Olujinmi announces appearance for the APC.
12.11 p.m.: It is the decision of this court that on issue four regarding double nomination, this court cannot allow the matter of double nomination to be relitigated in this court, Justice Okoro says.
The Supreme Court dismisses Peter Obi’s appeal.
12: 09 p.m.: Our decision on earlier issues in Atiku’s appeal will abide on Peter Obi’s appeal, the court says.
12: 13 p.m.: Other Justices of the Supreme Court panel agree with Justuce Okoro’s lead decision on Peter Obi’s appeal.
12:14 p.m.: The judgement ends both Atiku’s and Mr Obi’s appeals. Justices file out.
