Why apex court stopped Buhari<\/strong><\/p>\nIn their unanimous judgement, the panel of Justices led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, affirmed the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal which on November 12, 2011dismissed the petition that the CPC filed against the outcome of the presidential poll as grossly lacking in merit.<\/p>\n
Whereas it was Justice Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye that prepared and read the lead judgement, the CJN who was absent in court yesterday and five other justices on the panel, concurred with the ruling.<\/p>\n
The court dismissed the appeal on grounds that the CPC failed to substantiate alleged acts of non-compliance it claimed substantially affected the outcome of the election. The apex court maintained that the appellant was unable to discharge the burden of proof as stipulated in section 136 of the Evidence Act, noting that “from all indication, this petition was doomed to fail from the first day it was filed.”<\/p>\n
“Every legal practitioner ought to know that this appeal was bound to fail. A close look at the case of the appellant will show that it is principally seeking two reliefs, the nullification of the April 16 election and an order mandating INEC to conduct a fresh election.<\/p>\n
Where these two vital reliefs were not available to the petitioner in view of the evidence it tendered before the tribunal, it reduces the appeal before this court to a mere academic exercise that does not justify the sleepless nights we had writing this judgment. This is why I implore members of the bar to always tell their clients the truth in respect of cases like this”, Justice Mahmud Mohammed Tanko, who led the panel yesterday, noted.<\/p>\n
“Appellant did not pursue the criminal allegations…”<\/p>\n
“The law is trite that the appellant, in claiming declarative reliefs, ought to stand on the strength of its own case and not only on witness evidence. The appellant did not pursue the criminal allegations it made in its briefs but rather relied solely on the civil aspect.<\/p>\n
Having therefore abandoned the criminal allegation, what remained of the appellant’s contention was the issue of non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. The burden of proof rests on the appellant and the question is whether it was able to discharge such burden before this court, a question to which I say no,” Justice Walter Onnoghen added.<\/p>\n
Concurring, Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi, said the CPC should not complain of fair-hearing after it failed to maximise adequate time that was accorded to it by the election petition tribunal to present its case.<\/p>\n
“Having gone through the records of the tribunal, it is my considered view that the appellants right of fair hearing was not denied in anyway.<\/p>\n
The position of the law is that he who asserts must prove. The court below correctly evaluated the evidence before it. The case of the petitioner collapsed on November 12 after the tribunal in its ruling expunged the evidence of petitioners PW-1, Mr Anthony Momoh, which dealt with the issue of non-compliance as alleged by the appellant. There is nothing before this court indicating that the ruling was appealed”, Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour noted.<\/p>\n
Specifically the court held that “before a petition can succeed on grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, the petitioner must prove that the non-compliance actually took place and substantially affected the result of the election as was decided in the case between Awolowo and Shagari.<\/p>\n
“There is no doubt that it is the statutory duty of the 1st defendant, INEC, to conduct and defend election as an independent and unbiased umpire, however, mere allegation by the petitioner or calling hearsay evidence cannot shift burden of proof to the 1st defendant. The onus to establish substantial non-compliance is on the petitioner; it is only after then that the burden shifts to the respondents to prove that the election was not marred by substantial irregularities. In which ever angle this petition is looked at, the petitioner did not discharge the burden of proof given on the balance of probability.<\/p>\n
“Consequently, the 3rd and 4th respondents (Jonathan and Sambo) won the April 16 presidential election conducted by the 1st respondent (INEC) and were returned by the 2nd respondent (Professor Attahiru Jega) as the duly elected President and Vice President Respectively. This appeal failed in its entirety and is hereby dismissed. Parties are to bear their respective costs,” the Supreme Court ruled.<\/p>\n
I leave justice to God – Buhari<\/strong><\/p>\nResponding to the verdict, Buhari said he had resolved to leave the issue of justice in the hands of God Almighty, alleging that “the decision of the Supreme Court is politically motivated and has little judicial content.”<\/p>\n
Buhari, who read a speech he brought to court in front of newsmen yesterday, lamented: “As in 2003 and 2007, the Supreme Court this morning rejected CPC’s appeal against the Lower Court verdict that the rigged Presidential election of 16th, April 2011 was properly conducted. All who witnessed the conduct of the 2011 elections would know that this decision of the Supreme Court is politically motivated and has little judicial content.<\/p>\n
“This Supreme Court has proved no better than the Supreme Courts of 2003 and 2007. For the records, let me refresh the public memory about what happened in the litigations after the 2003 and 2007 rigged elections.<\/p>\n
In 2003 we presented a cast iron case before the Court of Appeal citing several major infringements of the Electoral Act 2002. In particular we subpoenaed INEC to furnish the Court with proof of the ‘result’ they declared. They did not, because they could not. The Court still declared the result as valid. Worse still, the Supreme Court upheld this dubious ruling of a dubious election.<\/p>\n
“In 2007, I and my Party, the ANPP, produced copious proof that the presidential election was rigged in the most blatant fashion. For one, ballot papers were distributed to polling stations on blank sheets of paper, making it impossible to carry out an audit trail. Secondly, during the process of tallying the result, the egregious Professor Maurice Iwu, then Chairman of INEC excused himself from the collation venue (after only 11 states and Abuja of the 36 states were tabulated) and announced the ‘result.’ At the time he made this announcement voting materials had not even fully arrived in some states.<\/p>\n
“Only in Nigeria and only under a government like PDP’s would these criminalities pass the sanction of the Judiciary. Yet on appeal, the Justice Idris Kutigi Supreme court after a long adjournment, declared the election valid, with three justices dissenting. In both elections, local and international observers condemned the elections in no uncertain terms.<\/p>\n
“What happened in this year’s 2011 elections eclipsed all the other elections in the depth and scope of forgery and rigging. Initially there were high hopes that after 2003 and 2007 a semblance of electoral propriety would be witnessed. The new chairman of INEC, Professor Jega, was touted as competent and a man of integrity. He has proved neither. After asking for – and getting – close to N100 billion for the election including biometric data with all 10 finger prints to conduct a thorough electoral exercise, he botched it.<\/p>\n
AllAfrica – All the Time<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"Vanguard](\"http:\/\/allafrica.com\/img\/static\/publishers\/minibanners\/vanguard180.jpg\" "\\"Visit")
<\/a><\/p>\n