Tinubu triumphs after 171-day battle

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, ended the 171-day legal tussle to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu with the rejection of the election appeals filed by the Peoples Democratic Party standard bearer, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi of the Labour Party.

Atiku and Obi’s appeals commenced on May 8 and were concluded on Thursday, October 26, with the Supreme Court effectively ending their dreams of overturning Tinubu’s election victory.

In the lead judgment delivered by the Chairman of the seven-man panel, Justice Inyang Okoro, the apex court refused to consider the academic records of the President obtained from the Chicago State University, which Atiku sought to tender as fresh evidence to prove his allegation of certificate forgery against the ex-Lagos State governor.

The other justices on the panel-Uwani Aji, Mohammed Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Abubakar Tijjani, and Emmanuel Agim, agreed with the lead judgment dismissing Atiku and Obi’s appeals.

An elated Tinubu welcomed the Supreme Court verdict and sought the support of Nigerians, promising to exceed expectations in service delivery in the remaining years of his administration.

The President lauded the judiciary for withstanding “the fusillade of pressure and attempts at intimidation by some political actors.”

In a statement he signed, Tinubu said, “The victory of today has further energised and strengthened my commitment to continue to serve all Nigerians of all political persuasions, tribes, and faiths with honour and total respect for the diverse opinions and uniting values of our citizens.

“Our Renewed Hope Agenda for a greater and prosperous Nigeria has further gained momentum, and I will continue to work from morning to night, every single day, to build a country that meets our collective yearnings and aspirations. We are all members of one household, and this moment demands that we continue to work and build our country together.’’

In the lead-up to Thursday’s judgment, Atiku and Obi had faulted the September 6 ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Court.

The PEPC headed by Justice Haruna Tsammani had dismissed their petitions and upheld Tinubu’s electoral victory in the February 25 presidential poll.

Atiku had filed 35 grounds of appeal while Obi filed 51 at the Supreme Court.

To prove the allegation that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the presidential poll, Atiku had asked an Illinois Chicago district court to order the CSU to release the President’s academic records.

The former vice-president accused Tinubu of falsifying the CSU diploma of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration awarded in 1979 that he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission for the election.

He demanded a copy of any diploma issued by CSU in 1979, a copy of the diploma the CSU gave to Tinubu in 1979, and copies of diplomas with the same font, seal, signatures, and wording awarded to other students that are similar to what CSU awarded to him in 1979.

Atiku’s application was opposed by Tinubu’s lawyers, citing privacy concerns. Still, the United States court ordered the release of the ex-Lagos State governor’s academic records, which Atiku filed in support of his election petition appeal at the Supreme Court.

However, the hope of the former vice-president was dashed by the court, which held that the constitutionally allowed period for such evidence to be admitted had since elapsed.

It stressed that section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, expressly gave the PEPC a 180-day lifespan to hear and determine in writing, all petitions arising from the presidential election.

According to the apex court, considering that the PEPC, which sat as the court of first instance in the presidential dispute, had since delivered its verdict, no provision of the law would allow the admittance of any other evidence at the appeal stage.

Court rejects evidence

It noted that the 180 days given to the tribunal by the Constitution expired on September 17, adding that the Supreme Court no longer had the requisite jurisdiction to admit the document.

“This court cannot do what the trial court is no longer constitutionally permitted to do, “Justice Okoro held, adding that Atiku and the PDP could no longer invoke the provision of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act.

More so, the apex court noted that the forgery issue, which Atiku sought to establish through the proposed fresh evidence, was not pleaded in any paragraph of his appeal.

“It is crystal clear that the additional evidence did not fit into issues for determination in this appeal. Therefore, this application is refused and accordingly dismissed,” the Supreme Court held.

Citing sections 14(2a) and 132 of the Electoral Act, Okoro said a petitioner is not allowed to amend his petition after the stipulated 21 days, let alone provide fresh evidence.

He said, “A petitioner shall not be allowed to amend his petition after 21 days allowed by section 132. The appellants have not applied to the court to amend their petition flect the fact of forgery, and Exhibit C and D sought to be admitted.

“Facts and documents not pleaded in the petition have no place in deciding the dispute between the parties. I wonder how they want to use the evidence in this appeal.

“Also, let me refer you to the comment by Atiku’s lawyer. It is shocking to have Atiku’s lawyer argue in print that there is no statutory time limit of 180 days for the lower court to decide a presidential election petition. It could have passed for friendly jokes but not for a serious matter like this.”

He declared, “After election petitions have suffered as a result of the provision which allowed election petitions to be heard even until the respondent has completed his tenure, the National Assembly dealt with this mischief by limiting the time which election petition shall be determined.

“It is unfair to suggest we go back to the dark days. There is nothing in section 285(6) of the Constitution to suggest that the court of appeal can hear a presidential petition without time limitation.

“Since the lower court cannot entertain such an application, it follows that this Supreme Court also has no jurisdiction to allow the deposition to be used in this appeal. It has to be noted that the 180 days imposed to hear election petitions is immutable and cannot be extended.’’

“It is a settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended, it is immutable, and it is fixed like the rock of Gibraltar and it cannot be moved, expanded and elongated, or stretched beyond what it states,’’ he stated with finality.

Rejecting Atiku’s prayer for his application on the CSU deposition to be granted, the jurist noted, “The leave cannot be granted. We do not have the vires to admit this deposition. We cannot invoke section 22 of the Supreme Court Act since the lower court has lost its jurisdiction.

“There is no paragraph in the petition to accommodate a case of forgery. If the deposition should be admitted, it would float on the appeal. The appellant failed to convince this court why it waited till after the tribunal delivered its judgment in the petition and lost the 180 days donated to it by the constitution before bringing the deposition.

“It has to be noted that appeals are a continuation of the hearing of the matter in the lower court. With due respect to the appellant counsels, they were tardy and not diligent enough. The deposition does not fit into the determination of this appeal. It is hereby refused and dismissed.”

Furthermore, the court held that Atiku did not prove that the Independent National Electoral Commission did not substantially comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act, in the conduct of the election.

The apex court affirmed that section 185(1) of the Evidence Act provided that an election should not be liable to be invalidated when alleged non-compliance did not substantially affect the outcome of the election.

It further held that the evidence contained in the record of the appeal showed that the appellants abandoned the duty imposed on them by the law to not only prove the alleged non-compliance but to establish that the failure of INEC to transmit the results of the election through its IReV portal influenced the outcome of the presidential poll.

The Supreme Court said it had in past judgments made it clear that there was a difference between the election result collation system and the IReV portal.

Results collation

“Where the IReV portal fails, it does not stop the collation which up till the last election was manually done,” the court pointed out.

Nevertheless, it stressed that INEC’s failure to electronically transmit the results of the election denied the electorate the opportunity to follow and cross-check the results that were eventually uploaded.

“Truth must be told, the non-transmission of results to the IReV portal may also reduce the confidence of the voting population in the electoral process,” Okoro warned.

He emphasised that the unavailability of results on INEC’s IReV portal “for whatever reason, could not be the reason for an election to be nullified.’’

Ruling on the failure of INEC to transmit the result to IREV, Okoro said the non-transmission of the results to the IReV portal did not affect the outcome of the poll.

“A petitioner seeking to nullify an election must show how non-compliance substantially affected the election. The appellant abandoned the duty placed on them to prove non-compliance but relied solely on INEC’s inability to electronically transmit the election results to the INEC Results Viewing portal.

“The Electoral Act empowers INEC to determine the mode of transmission of election results. When IReV fails, it does not stop the collation of the results, it only deprives people of viewing results. The non-function of the IReV will affect the trust of the electorates in the election.

“Unavailability of IReV cannot be a ground for the election to be nullified. The failure did not affect the outcome of the election. The issue is resolved against the appellants,’’ Okoro stated as he delivered another blow to Atiku’s election petition appeal.

On the claims of manipulation of the election, the court described Atiku’s witnesses’ testimonies as hearsays.

Okoro said, “Atiku’s agents can only testify in their polling units where they witnessed what they saw, but not across the country where they were not present. I adopt the decision of the lower court which is in line with a plethora of precedents.

“The witnesses who were the appellant state collection agents and national collation agents were not present in all the polling units which results they have disputed. The testimonies of these agents other than the one they witnessed are nothing but hearsay. The finding of the lower court in discountenancing Atiku’s witnesses cannot be faulted.”

The court also reasoned that Atiku and the PDP did not prove that they suffered any miscarriage of justice as a result of the dismissal of their petition by the PEPC.

It described as misconceived and misplaced Atiku’s contention that Tinubu ought not to have been declared the winner of the presidential election, having failed to secure 25 per cent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

The apex court affirmed the position of the PEPC that the FCT does not have a status that is more special than that of the 36 states of the federation.

Okoro ruled, “I do not see anything wrong with the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court when it interpreted the constitution regarding the issue of 25 per cent in FCT. Are you saying if someone scores 25 per cent of votes in 30 states but not in Abuja, he should not be president? Is that how you interpret the law? That is not the law.

“A narrow and selfish approach should be avoided when interpreting the constitution. It should be done in the interest of the generality and not for the benefit of the few. Interpretation of law must not be such that it will reduce law-making to absurdity.

“Let me drive this matter home. Are you saying that if a candidate scores majority votes across the country but fails to win the election in the Federal Capital Territory, can’t the candidate be declared president? I see no merit in this issue and resolved it against the appellants.”

The court further upheld the striking out of the evidence of some of the witnesses who testified for Atiku at the PEPC hearing, adding that most of the witnesses gave “inadmissible hearsay” evidence.

“The appellants did not present any evidence to warrant the interference of the findings of the lower court,” the leader of the panel added.

On the allegation that Tinubu was involved in a drug-related case in the USA that led to the forfeiture of $460, 000, the Supreme Court held that the appellants raised the issue when the respondents had already filed their process, adding that the action denied them (Respondents) the right to fair hearing.

On the ground that the result that was declared by INEC was not accurate, Okoro averred that Atiku and the PDP failed to put forward their perceived rightful results.

He said that the result announced by INEC was presumed correct in the absence of “any rival or alternative result.”

“The figure before us shows that the 2nd respondent won the highest number of votes and was duly declared winner,” he added.

Okoro decried the trend by litigants to organise briefings on issues in court and he further cautioned them to refrain from media trials.

“Litigants are advised to trust the court. It is becoming these days that while a matter is in court, litigants engage in press briefings analysing the case. Based on this, some of their followers send threatening messages to the judges and justices. Matters in court are said to be sub judice, they should refrain from media trials. I need not say more on this. A word is enough for the wise,’’ he warned.

The court said Atiku’s petition had no merit and consequently resolved all the issues that he raised in his petition against him.

“On the whole, having resolved all the issues against the appellants, it is my view that there is no merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower court delivered on September 6 is hereby affirmed. I shall make no order as to cost,” Okoro concluded his verdict which was transmitted on live television.

Passing his verdict on the matter, Saulawa described Atiku’s application as vexatious.

“The application by Atiku is frivolous and vexatious and deserves to be dismissed. I find no merit in the appeal. I affirm the decision of the lower court,” he stated.

Abubakar on his part said, “I find the application without merit and it deserves to be dismissed. I find no merit in the substantive appeal and it is hereby dismissed. Parties in the appeal shall bear their respective cost.”

Similarly, Jauro and Aji agreed with the lead judgment that Atiku’s appeal and application lacked merit.

Agim, who faulted the CSU deposition brought by the appellants, said, “I agree with the reasoning of my brother on the fresh evidence. The deposition presented was not authenticated by the authority before it was presented. It was not sealed or had a signature. It cannot be used in Nigeria without authentication.’’

Delivering the judgment on Obi’s appeal, Justice Okoro explained that all the issues raised by Obi had been dealt with in Atiku’s appeal.

The court also said the issue of the double nomination of Vice President Kashim Shettima ought not to have been brought before it, saying the matter had earlier been resolved by the court.

It, therefore, ruled that the appeal was lacking in merit.

Okoro said, “Our decision on earlier issues in Atiku’s appeal will abide by Peter Obi’s appeal. The issue regarding the double nomination of Vice President Kashim Shettima has been determined by this court and cannot be re-litigated.”

The other justices on the panel agreed with the lead judgment.

In a swift reaction, the PDP described the verdict as disappointing, arguing that it trashed Nigerians’ expectations.

The PDP National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba, said the party was alarmed, disappointed, and gravely concerned by the reasoning of the apex court.

The opposition party said, “It is indeed a sad commentary for our democracy that the Supreme Court failed to uphold the provisions of the law. Instead, it trashed the expectation of the majority of Nigerians who looked up to it as a temple of impartiality to deliver substantial justice in the matter having regard to the laws and facts of the case.’’

“Nigerians earnestly expected the Supreme Court to uphold and defend the clear provisions of the 1999 Constitution in terms of qualification and minimum requirement for a winner to be declared in a Presidential election in Nigeria, especially with regards to the required statutory 25 per cent of votes in the FCT as well as issues of violation of electoral rules and guidelines, brazen manipulations and alterations of election results by the APC, Ologunagba added.

The spokesman for the Labour Party Presidential Campaign Council, Yunusa Tanko, lamented that the Supreme Court turned a deaf ear to the several pleas made by the party.

Reacting to the judgment, Tanko, stated, “As far as we are concerned, we have brought out our cases beyond reasonable doubt, but the court chose to look at the other side and turn a deaf ear to our plea. And they have taken their decision.

“As democrats, we will not do anything otherwise but rather resort to the masses’ court — the public and people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. They can analyse this judgment vis-a-vis what they are facing at the moment and what’s the credibility of the leadership already enthroned.”

Wish list

Shortly after the apex court delivered the judgment, eminent Nigerians set agenda for the President, saying he should settle down and tackle the economic crisis in the country.

A former presidential aspirant of the PDP, Mazi Sam Ohuabunwa, called on Tinubu to consider fence-mending and reconciliation as his first priority.

In an interview with The PUNCH, he warned the President to avoid taking advice from some political hawks in his circle. The ex-President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria noted that it was no secret that many Nigerians, especially the younger population, were not happy.

While congratulating the President, the pan-Yoruba socio-cultural and political organisation, Afenifere, recommended steps to nip insecurity in the bud nationwide.

The worldwide leader of the group, Pa Reuben Fasoranti, in a statement by the group’s National Publicity Secretary, Jare Ajayi, described the verdict by both the tribunal and Supreme Court as monumental.

He said, “Monumental because of the clarifications made in respect of certain aspects of our electoral processes. One of such was the pronouncements made regarding the position of the Federal Capital Territory. Ditto for the position of the law regarding the deadline for filing papers relating to elections.”

The Afenifere leader said, “It is a matter of concern that insecurity is still being experienced. This can be seen in the upsurge in banditry, kidnapping, herdsmen attacks on farmers, cultism, and even terrorism.

“To put all these under control, the aspects of the law regarding policing in Nigeria should be looked into.

“At the moment, the extant law centralises the Nigeria Police. The doctrine of necessity should be invoked to allow states and local government areas to establish police services. The police at that level should be vested with all the powers that a police outfit should have in terms of equipment, emoluments, training and so on.’’

Speaking with The PUNCH, the Vice Chairman Of The Board at Highcap Securities Ltd, David Adonri, expected the capital market to play a vital role in mobilising long-term economic capital.

He said, “Distractions are gone now, so he has the presence of mind to focus on his assignment, and he has told his cabinet members that their jobs are secure.”

A Delta State development and environmental justice advocate, Comrade Mulade Sheriff, in a statement on Thursday advised the President to run an all-inclusive government.

On their part, communication firms said there was a need for the government to declare telecoms infrastructure as critical national infrastructure.

The Chairman, Association of Licensed Telecoms Operators of Nigeria, Gbenga Adebayo, called for, “Drive collaborative partnership with key stakeholders such as ONSA to secure executive and legislative action on the declaration of telecoms infrastructure as critical national infrastructure.”

A former Minister for Sports and Special Duties, Taoheed Adedoja called on the President to roll up his sleeves and deliver his Renewed Hope agenda to Nigerians.

Adedoja gave the charge in a telephone conversation with The PUNCH while reacting to Thursday’s Supreme Court judgment.

The Professor -turned politician also called on Nigerians to be patient with the Tinubu-led administration, noting that the former Lagos State Governor has what it takes to lead the country to the Promised Land.

He said, “Now that the whole litigation issues have been laid to rest by the Supreme Court, the President should intensify effort to deliver his promises to Nigerians.

“The time has come for him to double his effort and make a difference in health, education, agriculture, particularly as it relates to food security.

“I also call on Nigerians to be patient because the President cannot do it alone. We believe in Mr President’s capacity to turn around the fortune of this country but we all need to join hands with him.”

The National Leader of the Arewa Consultative Forum, Shettima Yerima urged Tinubu to prioritize security and alleviate suffering among Nigerians.

Yerima in an exclusive interview with The PUNCH on Thursday commended the courage of the Supreme Court justices.

He said “We commend the courage of the Supreme Court to speak the minds of Nigeria, which they have demonstrated without bias without looking at ethnicity or religion as a yardstick to why they will not do justice.

The Arewa Youth leader declared that justice is not to President Tinubu but to the country.

Speaking on what the President should prioritize, Yerima noted “I am happy the President himself had admitted that we’re going to face the challenge and they are quite aware of this enormous challenges in the country.

He continued “The President should look inward, and begin to find a way to alleviate this suffering of the masses in the country, There is no story that things are not easy anymore, and life is quite challenging.

“President Tinubu also needs to urgently tackle insecurity. The issue of insecurity has also marred the country. And those are problems he inherited from the previous government. Anybody who wants to be fair to him would have known that these problems were staged-managed, we knew these problems were coming and we’re going to fall into them on the new administration.”

So it also lies on us as citizens to support him. This is not a moment of agitation. This is not the moment to fight anybody, this is the time to build a country that we can all be proud of.”