Presidential election tribunal reserves judgment in HDP’s petition

By Andrew Orolua, Abuja

The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on Monday reserved it’s judgment in the petition filed by the Hope Democratic Party (HDP) and its presidential candidate, Chief Albert Owuru to a date to be communicated to the petitioners and lead lawyers in the matter.

Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Mohammed Garba announced this yesterday, after the lead lawyers in the matter adopted their final written addresses.

Petitioners counsel, Chukwunonyelu Njokwu told the tribunal while adopting his final written address to grant the petitioner prayers and nullify the election held on February 23, 2019 that was won by President Muhammadu Buhari.

He said that their petition is anchored on the fact that the purported general elections conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on February 23 lack legal backing and that the cancellation, and shifting of the polls from February 16 to a new date by INEC without authorization was illegal.

The respondents, President Buhari, INEC and the All Progressives Congress (APC) represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Yunus Ustaz Usman (SAN) and Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN) respectively, also adopted their final written addresses, urging the tribunal to dismiss the petition with a heavy cost for lacking in merit and being misconceived.

Besides being misconceived, Chief Olanipekun (SAN) urged the tribunal to discountenance the composite final written address of the petitioners which he claims did not make any reference to his written address.

It would be recalled that the only witness of the Hope Democratic Party (HDP), Yusuf Ibrahim, who testified during the hearing of the petition in July, had prayed the tribunal to declare the party’s candidate Chief Owuru winner of the 2019 presidential election and also urged the tribunal to order the inauguration of Ambrose Owuru as the elected President.

The witness said his evidences were predicated on the party’s position that Owuru was returned as President on a referendum conducted in the country on February 16, the day the presidential election was initially slated to hold.

Ibrahim, who was led in evidence by HDP’s lawyer, Eze Nnayelugo, told the tribunal that a referendum conducted on February 16 placed Owuru winner by over 50 million Nigerians.

The witness attacked the shifting of the presidential election from February 16 to February 23 by the INEC and described the election of February 23 as illegal, unconstitutional and a nullity because conditions precedent for shifting election were not met by electoral commission.

Ibrahim further informed the tribunal that the Citizens Observers Referendum Election Rights Protection of Nigeria conducted the referendum across the country and that Owuru of the HDP won and emerged as Nigeria’s President.

The witness insisted that the referendum was held physically and not in the spiritual realm as claimed by Buhari, the APC and INEC, just as he tendered some documents, including the report of the Citizens Observers Referendum Election Rights Protection of Nigeria, final list of presidential candidate and copies of major newspapers to buttress his claim on the referendum.

Besides, the witness also alleged the unlawful exclusion of the HDP in the February 23 poll by INEC’s refusal to put its original logo on the ballot papers as done for other parties by INEC.

Under cross- examination by INEC’s lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), the witness admitted that INEC has sole responsibility of conducting elections in the country, but however, said that the electoral body lacks powers to shift the election as it did on February 16, which he said prompted Nigerians to opt for a referendum.

However, when asked to produce the results of the referendum before the tribunal, Ibrahim said it was not with him at the tribunal and that he has submitted it to his lawyer.

Also when cross- examined by APC’s lawyer, Akin Olujimi (SAN), the witness said that the referendum of February 16 was not a celestial exercise or through the internet, adding that it was a physical exercise.

Attempt by the HDP to call another witness, who was subpoenaed was unsuccessful because the witness had no deposition on oath.