Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have asked to be declared winner of the 2019 presidential election that held on February 23.
Mr Abubakar and his party made this demand in a 43-page final address filed through their lead counsel, Livy Uzoukwu, before the presidential election tribunal on August 14.
The petitioners also said they had proven their claim that President Muhammadu Buhari did not have the minimum academic qualification of a secondary school certificate to contest the election.
Mr Buhari’s qualification is one of the arguments put forward by the PDP in their petition before the tribunal on March 28, to challenge the victory of Mr Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the poll.
The nation’s electoral umpire had declared Mr Buhari winner of the election having scored majority of the votes.
But Mr Abubakar and his party accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of colluding with the ruling party to rig the poll in favour of the APC.
According to Mr Abubakar, his party won the elections with over 1 million votes.
They also allege electoral irregularities allegedly perpetrated by INEC and security agencies in support of Mr Buhari and APC.
The tribunal had on August 1 adjourned till August 21 for the adoption of final addresses by parties shortly after the respondents closed their defence against the petition of Mr Abubakar and PDP.
Proving their case, the petitioners had called in 62 witnesses and tendered documents, including video evidence to prove their claims.
While Mr Buhari as the second respondent in the petition called in only seven witnesses and tendered few documents in defence of his victory, INEC and the APC said they would be relying on the testimonies made by the petitioners’ witnesses during their cross-examination.
However, Mr Abubakar and the PDP in the final address, asked the tribunal to nullify the election of Mr Buhari since they have been able to prove the fact that he was not qualified to run in the first place.
Besides, they said they had proved all allegations contained in their petition against the conduct of the presidential election by the INEC.
According to them, five major issues for determination by the five-member tribunal, led by Mohammed Garba, include whether Mr Buhari at the time of the election was qualified to contest the election.
“Whether Buhari submitted to INEC affidavit containing false information of fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election.
“Whether from the pleadings and evidence led it was established that Buhari was duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
“Whether the presidential election conducted by INEC on February 23 was invalid by reason of corrupt practices; and
“Whether the presidential election conducted by INEC on February 23 was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended, the Electoral Guidelines 2019 and manuals issued for the conduct of the election,” they said in the filing.
The petitioners said even the witnesses Mr Buhari presented to defend him, under cross examination, admitted to the fact that the president did not possess a school certificate, being the basic requirements for contesting for the office of the president.
“We, therefore, submit that all the purported evidence led by the second respondent (Buhari) to prove that he attended a secondary school or a primary school or that he attended some courses is irrelevant because he did not rely on any of those purported qualifications in exhibit P1, he relied on primary school certificate, WASC and Officer Cadet.
“Equally futile is his attempt to prove that he can speak and write in the English language. That is all irrelevant to his inability to produce his primary school certificate, secondary school certificate or WASC and his Officer Cadet qualification, whatever that means. Officer Cadet is not a qualification or certificate under the constitution and Electoral Act; nor is it known to any law,” they said.
On the supposed Cambridge University certificate tendered by Mr Buhari, the petitioners asked why “it was easier for Buhari to go all the way to Cambridge in the United Kingdom to obtain a bogus documents that his own witnesses said was not a certificate, instead of just driving down the street in Abuja to the Army Headquarters or placing a phone call to the Secretary of the Military Board in Abuja to hurry over with his certificate or certificates.”
They also submitted that, “a comparison of the purported Cambridge Assessment International Education Certifying Statement of the purported West African Examination Council (WAEC) certificate and a certified true copy of the purported confidential result sheet of the University of Cambridge West African School Certificate of 1961 for the Provincial Secondary School, Katsina reveals many discrepancies in the supposed result.
“One listed eight subjects that the candidate therein mentioned one ‘Mohammed Buhari’ allegedly sat for, the other six subjects; both documents are therefore unreliable as both cannot be correct. The contradiction must count against the second respondent.
Another claim by the resident, according to the petitioners, is that he attended “Elementary School, Daura and Mai Aduwa 1948-52.”
He also claimed he entered Middle School, Katsina in 1953.
However, the petitioners said by 1953, the Middle School system had been abolished in the Northern Region of Nigeria.
On the claim that his certificates were with the military, the petitioners said Mr Buhari failed woefully to prove the claim, “rather the petitioners’ evidence to the contrary was not contested nor challenged.”
They also argued that they have successfully proven that the Nigerian Army had denied being in possession of Mr Buhari’s alleged certificates.
“One of the strongest evidence on the issue was given by the second respondent’s own witness, RW1, General Paul Tarfa (rtd), who under cross-examination by the first respondent (INEC), told the court firmly and unequivocally that the Army did not collect the certificates of military officers and added, ‘there was no such thing,” they said.
Controversy over declared result
On the issue of rigging and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, the petitioners said with the plethora of evidence tendered and witnesses called, they had been able to show to the tribunal that Mr Buhari’s election was invalid.
They added that an analysis of results from 11 states showed how INEC in connivance with Mr Buhari and the APC wrongly and unlawfully credited him with votes not valid or lawful.
According to them, documents tendered before the tribunal showed huge discrepancies between collated results as contained in the tendered Certified True Copies of forms EC8A and polling units.
They further alleged that a total of 2, 906,384 votes were cancelled across the country, while 2, 698,773 Nigerians were disenfranchised.
They said the two figures when added exceeded the 3, 928,869 differential between the votes as stated in INEC form EC8E.
In addition, they said they had put forward evidence to show that INEC violated its own regulations and guidelines with respect to mandatory use of the smart card reader in the process of accreditation, which according to them occasioned over voting thereby rendering the election null and void.
They therefore prayed the tribunal to grant all the reliefs sought in their petition.