PEPT judgement: Supreme Court fixes Oct 23 to hear Atiku’s appeal

[By VICTOR NZE]

Supreme Court has fixed Monday, October 23 to hear the appeal filed by the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, challenging the judgement of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) which had in September affirmed President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the February 25 election.

The Supreme Court disclosed, Thursday, that notices for the hearing which is to commence by 23 of October 2023 were served on both Atiku and Peter Obi.

The notices signed by Zainab M. Garba in the Office of the Registrar said by the Order 2 Rule 1(2) of the Supreme Court’s Rules 1985 as amended, the notice is deemed as sufficiently served on the parties.

The list of seven Supreme Court Justices to sit on the panel to hear the appeals include; justices Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, Lawal Garba, Helen M. Ogunwumiju, I.N. Saulawa, Tijjani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim.

The PEPT in affirming President Tinubu as winner of the election as declared by the Independent national Electoral Commission (INEC) on March 1, also dismissed the petitions filed by Atiku, Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) all challenging the declaration of Tinubu as winner.

In Atiku’s appeal, the former Vice President has also attached fresh documents secured from the Chicago State University (CSU) to back his charge of perjury and forgery against Tinubu at the Supreme Court.

Last week, Atiku had urged the Supreme Court to ignore technicality and grant his application for leave to tender fresh and additional evidence in his appeal challenging the judgment of PEPT delivered  last September.

Atiku had earlier in the month secured fresh documents from the Chicago State University (CSU) in one of the grounds of his appeal questioning the academic qualifications of President Bola Tinubu and the latter’s eligibility to contest the February 25 election on allegation of perjury and forgery.

However, Atiku now battles technicality issues concerning the Supreme Court’s ability to adopt fresh evidence in the appeal against Tinubu’s academic credentials, as the CSU adduced that the President did not tender the authentic records of the CSU to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to qualify to contest the February 25 election.

Atiku has already tendered the fresh documents to back his appeal against the September judgement of

Atiku predicated his plea on the grounds that presenting forged documents by any candidate, especially by a candidate vying for the highest office in the land, is a very grave constitutional issue that must not be encouraged.

Atiku stated this in his reply on point of law to Tinubu’s objection to the grant of leave to Atiku to present the fresh evidence before the apex court.

Meanwhile, Tinubu had predicated his objection on grounds of jurisdiction and that the issue of qualification is a pre-election matter, amongst others, and subsequently prayed the court to deny the grant of the application.

The apex court statutorily has until November 6, this year, to give a final judgment in the appeal.

So far, all the parties at the Supreme Court have now filed their documents.

The appellants have filed their Notice of Appeal, they have also filed their Appellant’s Brief of Arguments. In addition, all the Respondents have replied the Appellant’s Brief of Argument.

The Appellants, last week had also filed their reply to the Respondent’s Brief.

It would be recalled that, last month, Candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the February 25, 2023 presidential election, Peter Obi, filed 51 grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court to invalidate the election of President Bola Tinubu.

Obi argued in his appeal that the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, (PEPT), erred in law and hence reached an erroneous decision when it denied his petition to contest the outcome of the February 25 presidential election.

Among other things, he claimed that the five-member panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Haruna Tsammani committed a grievous miscarriage of justice against him by ruling that he did not specify voting units where anomalies occurred during the election.

He further chastised the PEPT for dismissing his complaint because he did not disclose the numbers of votes or scores that were allegedly suppressed or inflated in favour of Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Obi claimed that the testimony of his witnesses was wrongfully dismissed as incompetent, accusing the lower court of violating his right to a fair hearing.

He informed the Supreme Court that the panel had wrongfully disregarded his claim that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, had posted 18, 088 obscured results to its IReV platform.

He informed the Supreme Court that the panel had wrongfully disregarded his claim that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, had posted 18, 088 obscured results to its IReV platform.

Furthermore, he claimed that the lower court ignored his claim that certified true copies of documents issued by INEC to his legal team consisted of 8,123 blurred results containing blank A4 papers, pictures, and images of unknown persons, purporting to be the CTC of polling unit results of the presidential election.

“The learned justices of the court below erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when they held and concluded that he failed to establish the allegation of corrupt practices and over-voting,” Obi stated.

Similarly, the PDP candidate, Atiku filed a notice of appeal predicated on 35 grounds, as he insisted that the tribunal committed a grave error and miscarriage of justice in its findings and conclusion in its petition challenging the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s declaration of Tinubu as President.

The notice of appeal also asks the Supreme Court to overturn the Tribunal’s findings and conclusions, claiming that they do not accurately reflect the facts of his case.

Atiku contended that the tribunal erred in law when it refused to nullify the presidential election held on February 25, 2023, on the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022, when evidence before the Tribunal showed that INEC conducted the election on the basis of grave and gross misrepresentation, in violation of the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.