The Presidential Elections Petitions Tribunal in Abuja and the Supreme Court will be examining major issues raised by both the PDP and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and the defence by the APC and its candidate, President Muhammadu Buhari, concerning the February 23, 2019, presidential election.
There are petitions by three other presidential candidates who are also alleging widespread irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
The candidates: Ambrose Owuru of the Hope Democratic Party (HDP), Geff Chizee Ojinka of the Coalition for Change (CC), and Aminchi Habu of the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM).
The powers, procedures and the main issues in contention are examined below.
Constitutional powers of the courts Section 239 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution empowers the Court of Appeal with original jurisdiction to hear and determine the validity of a person elected to the office of the president or vice president.
Because of their sui generis (special nature), election petitions are to be decided within a time limit. Section 134 (1) to (3) of the Electoral Act, 2010, provides for 21 days for filing of petition after the declaration of results.
Further, it provides for 180 days (six months) for determination of the petition by the tribunal. It provides that an appeal from a decision of the election tribunal or court shall be heard and disposed of within 90 days from the date of the delivery of judgment.
Procedure for determination of petitions
A five-member panel of justices, including the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, are expected to begin hearing in the petitions challenging the outcome of the presidential election.
In order to adhere to the time limit for the determination of the questions brought before it, the panel will normally allot time for oral arguments by the lead counsels for the parties for each petition based on its rules.
The justices will seek to clarify or elaborate on any knotty issue in the briefs of the parties before it. As a judicial rule, the lead counsel for the petitioner would be allowed a rebuttal on “points of law” from issues raised by the opposing camps.
As the court of first instance, the tribunal is expected to review materials used for the election, hear witnesses’ testimonies and analyse statistical presentations within the approved time.
At the winding down of the tribunal, the justices begin conferences during which they vote on the case.
The justices also decide who would write the majority decision. If out of the odd number there is a dissent, a dissenting opinion is written.
Where there is a tie, a senior justice would decide one way or the other to produce a majority decision of three to two. After this, the matter moves to the Supreme Court for determination within 90 days of the tribunal’s judgement.
To align with the time limit, Section 134(4) of the Electoral Act permits the apex court’s panel to first give its decision and reserve the reasons thereto for the decision to a later date.
Although the apex court is not expected to conduct similar proceedings as the tribunal, under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, 2004, it has powers to assume full jurisdiction over the entire proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted and prosecuted as the court of first instance.
The section further reads: “It may rehear the case in the whole or in part or may remit it to the court below for the purpose of such proceedings.” Section 8 of the Act and Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution makes the decisions of the Supreme Court to be enforceable in every court and authorities throughout the federation. E.M.D. Umukoro Esq. explains that in arriving at its final decision in the presidential elections petitions, one of the seven Supreme Court justices usually writes the lead judgment.
“The others are free to either concur/agree with the decision or they can have a dissenting decision. Now assuming three are for, while three are against, the seventh justice will make the number of either the ‘for’ or the ‘against’ and the majority becomes the decision of the court,” Umukoro said. Major issues for the tribunal, Supreme Court.
Did the declared winner score majority of valid votes cast?
The tribunal and the Supreme Court would decide on the PDP and Atiku’s contention that Buhari and APC did not score the majority of valid votes cast in the 36 states and FCT despite polling 15,191,847 votes and Atiku 11,262,978 votes.
Was the election not in compliance with the Electoral Act?
There would be a determination as to whether 2,906,384 voters were unable to vote. They would also decide whether wrong entry of results in Form EC8As was made, accreditation problems, non-authentication and inflation/deflation of results and other alleged irregularities.
Was the election affected by corrupt practices?
The courts will also determine whether the election was affected by corrupt practices such as award of election materials contract to a party member, vote buying, manipulation of ballot papers/card readers and militarisation.
What is the qualification for the office of the president?
The courts would be required to resolve the question of the qualification to contest for the office of the president in line with the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act.
They will also determine whether such question could be a pre-election or post-election issue.
Was there false information to INEC?
The courts will decide whether both PDP and Atiku are correct to claim that the academic credentials listed in the General Form Affidavit made before the court on October 18, 2018, and also on November 24, 2014, by Buhari and APC are non-existent.
Question of citizenship?
The courts would also resolve the question of citizenship as a criteria for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 25 of the 1999 Constitution lists citizenship by birth from both or either of the individual’s parents whether within or outside Nigeria before or after the country’s independence in 1960.
DailyTrust
