Pat Stevens/
The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) has began its final sitting in Abuja.
Members of the five-man panel are:
Justice Mohammed Garba of the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal. He is the Presiding Justice of the panel.
*Justice Abdul Aboki of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal
*Justice Joseph Ikyegh of the Benin Division of the Court of Appeal
*Justice Samuel Oseji of the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal
*Justice Peter Ige of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal
The tribunal is to rule on the petition by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, challenging the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2019 presidential election.
The first application to be ruled upon by tribunal is the one filed by INEC (the 1st respondent) asking the tribunal to strike out the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to join the vice-presidential candidate of the APC, Yemi Osinbajo, as a party to the petition.
INEC says in the motion that Osinbajo is an indispensable party to the petition. It says failure to join Osinbajo in the petition has robbed the tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the petitioners’ case.
Justice Garba announces that reserved rulings on applications taken during the pre-hearing session will be delivered first before the judgment.
The grounds of the INEC’s motion is that the petitioners’ lead counsel, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), who signed the petitioners’ list of witnesses and other documents was not on the roll of lawyers kept by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court and as such cannot practise law in Nigeria.
The tribunal says if the allegation is found to be true all the documents of the petitioners will be struck out.
Uzoukwu debunks INEC’s allegation, says he was called to the Nigerian bar in 1982.
The second ruling is on another motion filed by INEC on April 25. The application by INEC seeks among others, the striking out of: 1. The petitioners’ list of documents relied on by the petition, 2. Petitioners’ list of witnesses, 3. Some paragraphs of the petition.
The tribunal unanimously dismisses INEC’s motion which Justice Garba describes as not being well-grounded in law.
The tribunal rules that a vice presidential candidate is not a necessary party in an election petition but an appendage of the presidential candidate who nominated him.
The tribunal now considering the INEC’s claim that the petitioners’ Ground E is a pre-election issue and thus incompetent. In the petitioners’ ground E, it was alleged that Buhari gave false information of fundamental nature in the affidavit submitted to INEC to aid his qualification to contest the election.
Again, the tribunal holds that the ground D of the petition challenged by INEC was valid and competent. It says that by virtue of section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, the ground D having to do with non-qualification of Buhari to contest the election is both a pre-election and post-election issue.
The tribunal is now considering the aspect of INEC’s motion which says some of the grounds of the petition constitute a pre-election matter which ought to have been filed in court within 14 days after the cause of action arose.
The said pre-election issues referred to by INEC are the allegations by the petitioners that Buhari was not qualified to contest the February 23 poll and that Buhari gave false information in his Form CF001 submitted to INEC.
Justice Garba noted that INEC appears to have made a detour by not further responding to Uzoukwu’s claims. He rules that that documents signed by Uzoukwu as a lawyer whose name appears on the rolls of the Supreme Court were validly and competently filed.
Uzoukwu says he was called into inner bar (conferred with SAN rank) along with INEC’s lead counsel, Yunus Usman (SAN) in 1982. Uzoukwu says he was Attorney-General of Imo State from 1994 to 1996.
A total of eight rulings were delivered:
*Three motions filed by INEC against the petition
-One dismissed
– Two partially succeeded leading to the striking out of some paragraphs in the petitioners’ petition and their reply to INEC’s reply to the petition
* Buhari filed two motions
– Two motions succeded partially leading to the striking out of some paragraphs in the petitioners ‘ reply to Buhari’s reply to the petition
*Petitioners filed one motion against APC’s reply to their petition
– Motion succeded in part leading to the striking out of some of the paragraphs of APC’s reply to the petition
*APC filed two motions
– One succeded partially in terms of prayers 6 and
– APC’s second motion also succeded partially
Tribunal takes “a short break.” Main judgment to be delivered upon return.
0