Presidential poll: Tribunal admits 5, 197 election result sheets as exhibits

…As Prof. Nwabueze announces appearance for Atiku, PDP

…Wants tribunal to avoid technicalities

Andrew Orolua, Abuja

Nigerian foremost constitutional lawyer, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN), on Thursday, announced appearance as the lead counsel for Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the ongoing hearing of the petition challenging the election of President Muhammadu Buhari just as the tribunal admitted 5,197 documents as exhibits.

Prof. Nwabueze (SAN), who came in a wheel chair, delivered an opening remark as Atiku and PDP opened their case against the election of President Muhammadu Buhari.

The tribunal on Thursday admitted a total of 5, 195 election result sheets and two Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) official receipts from Niger and Yobe states in evidence as exhibits.

Specifically, 3, 464 presidential election result sheets from 25 local government areas, polling units and wards in Niger State were tendered and admitted as exhibits. Also admitted as exhibits was a receipt of certification issued by INEC in respect of Niger State.

The petitioners also tendered 1,731 presidential election result sheets from 17 local government areas in Yobe State including results sheets from polling units and wards.

All the documents were admitted as exhibits. The tribunal also admitted one INEC receipt of certification issued in respect of Yobe State as exhibits.

The documents were the INEC Form EC8C – that is the election result sheets from each of the local government, Form EC8B election results from each polling units and Form EC8A the election result from the wards.

All the documents were tendered through Dr. Livy Uzoukwu (SAN) from the bar as earlier agreed during the pre-hearing session.

However, the respondents to the petition, INEC, President Muhammadu Buhari and All Progressives Congress (APC) through their lawyers, Yunus Ustaz Usman (SAN), Mike Igbokwe (SAN) and Yakubu Maikyau (SAN) respectively, opposed the tendering of the documents and their admissibility.

But they reserved their reasons for the objection and admissibility of the documents till their final addresses as earlier agreed during the pre – hearing session.

In effect, they will state their reasons for the objection in their separate written addresses at the close of hearing.

They did not, however, object to the INEC official receipt dated May 9, 2019 in respect of Yobe State which was accordingly admitted as exhibit PYB 1732.

In his remark on Thursday at opening of their case, Prof. Nwabueze noted that the February/March 2019 general elections have come gone, but “the generality of Nigerians seem agreed that something was wrong with them, particularly the February presidential election.”

According to Nwabueze, they suspect that the election was manipulated or in more familiar language, rigged.

Counsel to the petitioners said that the election tribunal/court is now saddled with the task, an intractable task of finding out the truth about what happened, stating that the task before the tribunal is intractable.

He regretted that tribunal and courts in recent times have succumbed to tyranny of procedure, precedent and the booby traps of pleadings.

He said Nigerians still expect it to rise above the self imposed shackles in order to find out the truth about what happened during that election, adding that “the tribunal/court owes it as a duty to the country to do so, as the discovery of the truth will help to set us free from the scourge of electoral malpractices.”

He said election tribunals are not for the purpose of adjudicating disputes arising in dealing or transactions between individual persons, “but for the purpose of enabling the political community to choose, in free and fair election, persons to manage public affairs on its behalf and for the benefit of all its members.”

Nwanbueze urged the tribunal to adopt an approach based on law but moderated by what is just and equitable in the interest of peace, security and good governance of the community in determining election cases, “not a rigid adherence to the technicalities of the law of pleadings and evidence and the doctrine of precedent.”