Atiku vs Buhari: How Supreme Court Crushed Ex-VP’s Hopes

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has given its verdict on Atiku Abubakar’s appeal against President Muhammadu Buhari’s election victory.

YaahooJournalist reports that the Supreme Court gave its verdict on Atiku’s appeal against Buhari’s election on Wednesday, October 30 in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital.

After about five hours of sitting, a seven-man panel led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Tanko Mohammed, held that the appeal by the PDP presidential candidate lacked merit.

The apex court upheld the judgment of the presidential election petition tribunal which affirmed Buhari’s election.

Here is how the proceedings unfolded…

ATIKU’S FIRST SETBACK

The former Vice President and candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) suffered his first loss when the Supreme Court rejected his plea to allow him to adopt all the briefs filed.

Atiku’s lead counsel, Levi Uzoukwu, had requested that all lawyers adopt their briefs, both in the main appeal and in seven other interlocutory appeals.

But the panel of the apex court turned down the request. It held that the main appeal covers the interlocutory appeals as well.

‘MUHAMMADU’ NOT SAME AS ‘MOHAMED’

The variation in the spelling of Buhari’s name was brought to the fore again. This time, Atiku’s lead counsel insisted that the second respondent (Buhari) failed to prove he is the owner of a certificate tendered as an exhibit.

Atiku’s lead counsel said the APC candidate failed to give any explanation for the discrepancy in his first name “Muhammadu”, and that which appeared in the exhibit, “Mohamed,” and that the tribunal was wrong to have speculated without evidence that the second respondent also bears “Mohamed”.

However, Buhari’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun, opposed his argument. He argued that the PDP counsel had a similar case at the appellate court, but that it was overlooked.

Buhari’s counsel said while Uzoukwu was called to the bar by the name, ‘Levinus Onyemachi Uzoukwu’, he uses only ‘Levi Uzoukwu’ and so, he cannot question Buhari’s own case.

Olanipekun also said the variation in Buhari’s name depends on the persons pronouncing it.

‘BUHARI WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO CONTEST FOR PRESIDENT’

Atiku’s lead counsel argued that Buhari was not qualified for the election because he allegedly failed to tender any of the certificates he said he acquired.

The PDP counsel said none of Buhari’s witnesses gave evidence as to what the certificates look like.

However, Buhari’s counsel countered his argument. He said the Nigerian constitution does not mandate a presidential candidate to attach his certificates as evidence of qualification.

‘INEC’S ARGUMENT ON SERVER BASELESS’

On the server, Atiku’s lead counsel said section 52(2) of the electoral act which INEC relied upon in rejecting the use of sever has been amended and deleted from the electoral act, and so, the argument is baseless.

However, INEC lead counsel, Yunus Usman, asked the court to dismiss Uzoukwu’s submission, saying the amendment only states that INEC has discretion on how to transmit election results.

Similarly, Buhari’s lawyer said the court of appeal did not agree that there was a server contrary to the appellant’s submission and that the conclusion is that, “there was a website managed and controlled by INEC”.

‘ONLY 5 OF 191,000 POLLING AGENTS CALLED AS WITNESS’

INEC lead counsel also said PDP’s argument on polling units lacked merit because they failed to call witnesses as required by the law.

Usman said the party called only five polling agents across the 191,000 polling units in the presidential election, whereas “the law requires that a polling agent must be called to testify from each of the polling units across the country”.

COURT ASKED TO THROW OUT PDP’S APPEAL ‘AS FAR AS HANDS CAN GO’

The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), had only one prayer: That the supreme court throw out the appellants’ appeal “as far as hands can go”.

APC counsel, Lateef Fagbemi, concurred with Olanipekun’s submission, and asked the Supreme Court to “throw out the appeal as far as hands can go”. It turned out to be the case.