Breaking: Election Tribunal affirms Buhari’s victory, dismisses Atiku, PDP petition


The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal has affirmed President Muhammadu Buhari as the winner of the February 23 presidential election. reviews that President Buhari experienced been declared the winner of the election by the Unbiased National Electoral Fee (INEC), an final result that the Peoples Democratic Social gathering (PDP) and its flag bearer, Atiku Abubakar turned down.

PDP and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar, experienced long gone to the Tribunal to challenge the result of the election for lacking in advantage, but they observed their petition dismissed unanimously.

When delivering his guide judgment, Justice Muhammed Garba held that the petitioners have unsuccessful to verify the allegations elevated in their petition.

In doing so, the Tribunal held that President Buhari possessed the requisite qualification and was eminently capable to contest the February 23 presidential election.

The Sunlight reviews that on the concern of qualification, the Tribunal further held that the Buhari’s curriculum vitae that was tendered by the petitioners them selves, “contained spectacular credentials” that capable him to contest the presidential election “even if he tendered primary faculty certificate”.

Chairman of Tribunal Justice Muhammed Garba, who was supported by 5 other justices, taken care of that proof of the petitioners proved that Buhari was not only “highly qualified, but eminently qualified” to contest the election.

Other users of the presidential panel are Justice Abdul Aboki (Courtroom of Attraction, Abuja), Justice Joseph Ikyegh (Courtroom of Charm, Benin), Samuel Oseji (Courtroom of Attraction, Lagos) and Justice Peter Ige ( Courtroom of Attraction, Abuja).

Read ALSO: Tragic!! UN states in excess of 1,400 killed by gunmen within six months in Nigeria

The panel similarly held that the mere truth that Buhari did not attach his certificates to the Kind CF001 he tendered right before the INEC was not a floor to allege that he does not have them.

The Tribunal further more explained the petitioners unsuccessful to position any proof in advance of it to show that Buhari was not capable in line with provisions of sections 131, 137 and 138 of the Constitution.

In addition, the Tribunal stated the petitioners unsuccessful to verify that the West African University Certificate (WASC) was not in existence as at 1961 when the 2nd Respondent (Buhari) joined the Nigerian Army.

It posited that the petitioners misconstrued the law by latching onto the assertion by the former spokesman of the Nigerian Military, Brigadier Basic Olajide Olaniyi, and arrived at a conclusion that Buhari lacked standard academic skills.

Justice Garba further held that similarly lethal to the circumstance of the petitioners was their incapability to simply call Brig. Gen. Olaniyi, who designed the stated statement, as a witness ahead of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal pointed out that Brig. Gen. Olaniyi had in the reported assertion just asserted that the Nigerian Army was not with Buhari’s unique certificates, admitting nonetheless that he (Buhari) obtained 6 credits in English language, Geography, Record, Hausa, Health and fitness Science and Literature.

The Tribunal wondered how Brig. Gen. Olaniyi realized about the subjects Buhari handed in his 1961 WASC if there was no credential in his Army file (Type 119a).

“The only affordable inference is that the 2nd Respondent introduced his WASC to Military,” Justice Garba held, stating “it will be unbelievable to keep in the encounter of exhibit P-24 that the 2nd Respondent does not possess qualification to contest for the business of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as stipulated in part 131 of the Structure.”

According to the Tribunal, given that the petitioners failed to generate Brig. Gen. Olaniyi as a witness, the statement he issued with regard to Buhari’s certification, which was admitted in proof, lacked probative value.

The tribunal also held that whereas segment 137 (1) stipulated disorders under which a particular person could be disqualified, part 318(1) outlined what School Certification or its equal implies as furnished in area 131.

It stated qualifications that can qualify a presidential candidate to involve the Quality 2 Instructors Certification, education and learning up to Secondary University, Main 6 Certificate or its equal, assistance in a public sector satisfactory to the INEC for a minimal of 10 decades, as effectively as the potential study and create in the English language.

The Tribunal claimed there was proof before it that Buhari finished both of those his primary and secondary instruction in 1956 and 196, respectively, prior to he joined the Nigerian Military.

It mentioned there was also evidence that Buhari attended army education from 1961 to 1963, indicating “it was set up past question that the 2nd Respondent experienced his instructional qualifications.”

The Tribunal held that neither the Constitution nor the Electoral Act expected Buhari to connect any of his certificates to the Kind CF 001 before he could be adjudged to have achieved the pre-requisite for qualification.

It stressed that given that the INEC’s screening method essential candidates to depose to an affidavit to attest to the veracity of the facts contained in the Form CF 001, there was no want for the presentation of the precise certificates.

Citing a earlier Supreme Court judgment, he reported: “Submission of educational certification is not a prerequisite for qualification to contest election for governor beneath part 177 of the Structure.

“It is established that a applicant is not needed beneath the Electoral Act to attach his certificate to his Kind CF001 just before a applicant is adjudged to have the requisite qualification to contest the election.

“In effect, the 2nd Defendant went through secondary education and learning and then proceeded to military school. The army university is increased than secondary instruction.

“Thus our conclusion is that Buhari is not only skilled but eminently certified to contest the presidential election.”

“The onus rests squarely on the petitioners to show their assertion that the 2nd Respondent does not possess the academic qualification to contest the election or that he submitted false info which is fundamental in mother nature to support his qualification. This I have stated that the petitioners unsuccessful to verify. The petitioners can’t, hence, rely on any failure in the scenario.

“I come to the summary and I take care of troubles 1 and 2 versus the petitioners.

“I have no question in my thoughts that the petitioners have unsuccessful to prove that the 2nd Respondent does not have the qualification to contest the election into the business office of the President as stipulated in area 131, 137, 138 of the Structure. I am also of the company look at that the petitioners have failed to show that the Second Respondent submitted untrue data which is basic in nature to help his qualification to contest the election into the Business of the President as approved in section 35(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.”

The Tribunal also dismissed the PDP assert on a central server and electronic transmission of effects.

The panel insisted that the handbook supplied by the INEC did not present for digital transmission of success.

Justice Garba extra: “These promises simply cannot be countenanced mainly because they absence value.

“Based on the accessible proof, it is very clear that the benefits have been collated manually.

“The proof and report of witness 59 of the petitioners (PW59) simply cannot be relied on that there was in fact INEC server or servers, as the circumstance could be, into which the success of the presidential election were being transmitted.

“Card reader equipment has not changed the voter sign-up. A petitioner will have to rely on the card reader to demonstrate non-accreditation or more than voting.

“I have carefully examined and examined Exhibit 28 (INEC Guide for Election) tendered by the petitioners, I did not see wherever there is provision for digital transmission of end result of election.

“The petitioners have as a result unsuccessful to demonstrate that the Second Respondent (President Buhari) did not score a majority of lawful votes in the election.

”This issue (problem 3) is hereby settled against the petitioners.”

The Tribunal also quashed the allegation of malpractices through the election.

After resolving all the challenges in favour of the respondents, the panel held that President was duly re-elected in the country’s previous presidential election.

The Tribunal, therefore, settled the concern in Buhari’s favour.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here