Buhari, Atiku: What next after judgement?

Senior Correspondent ERIC IKHILAE examines the significance of the judgemnt of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal and its implications for democratic consolidation

The ambience looked peaceful, less noisy and with less human traffic. A visit to the premises of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, last Thursday presented a sharp contrast to the atmosphere that pervaded the court the previous day.

Shortly after the information became public, last Tuesday afternoon, that the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) had scheduled the delivery of its much-awaited judgment for the next day, the usual tranquil mood around the court became disturbed.

Everyone had waited anxiously for the judgment in the petition by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar, against the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), in the last presidential election.

From 4pm till late Tuesday night, court officials and media men were busy putting things in place. With the permission of the court’s authorities, three television stations were authorized to relay the delivery of the judgment live.

Thus, officials of the television stations were required to set up their equipment the day before, which they did up to around 9pm.

September 11: A day like no other

As against the case on a normal work day, the court’s main car park was half full by 6am on the d-day, (September 11), with people hanging around the forecourt, awaiting court officials to open the door to the inner foyer and eventually the courtroom.

That did not happen until 7am. With a hoard of security personnel, drawn from the Nigeria Police Force (NPC), the Department of State Services (DSS) and others, access was initially restricted to the court’s inner foyer by officials, who claimed to be acting on instruction.

The door to the courtroom was only opened around 7.30am. A large crowd had formed around the entrance to the courtroom. It took great effort, with some struggle and pushing for people to eventually access the courtroom.

In no time, the large courtroom became packed with lawyers, reporters politicians and their supporters, many of whom, the security personnel later restricted to the foyer.

Obi, Ikimi, other PDP regulars absent

But, unlike the previous court sessions, majority of prominent politicians, who witnessed the proceedings, were member of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Majority of the usual faces, prominent among whom are the Vice-Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Peter Obi, and a former Foreign Affairs Minister, Tom Ikimi, stayed away yesterday.

APC big wigs dominate attendance

By 8.30am, an unusual personality came in. It was President Mohammadu Buhari’s Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari’s second visit to the court. He testified as one of the president’s witnesses. Dressed in his signature white agbada and red cap, Kyari, who strolled into the courtroom quietly, was accompanied by the Minister of State for Niger-Delta Affairs, Festus Keyamo (SAN), who was also dressed in white native dress, but without a cap.

They exchanged pleasantries with many as they were led by some court officials to a row of chairs reserved for the court’s audience. As if on cue, the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, strolled in a moment later, greeted some lawyers who approached him sat on a chair close to Kyari.

Other ministers, including Babtunde Fashola (Work and Housing) and Chris Ngige (Labour) were also in attendance. There was also the APC Chairman, Adam Oshiomhole, the governor of Plateau State, Simon Lalong, former PDP Chairman, Ali Modu Sheriff, former Bauchi State Governor, Mohammed Abubakar.

Prominent faces on the side of the petitioners were the PDP Chairman, Uche Secondus, and businessman, Raymond Dokpesi.

Politicians and spirit of camaraderie

Oshiomhole, who arrived earlier than Secondus, went straight to the latter on sighting him and shook hands with him. They also hugged, laughed healthily and conversed for some minutes before retiring to the seats kept for them.

All the politicians in attendance (from both camps) sat in the same corner of the court, with Dokpesi sitting directly behind Kyari for the entire length of the proceedings. None exhibited any sign of animosity. They conversed, laughed and held hands.

Not all a bad day for petitioners

Although the judgment went against them, it was not an entirely a bad day for the petitioners as they recorded some pluses.

The court refused to be drawn into the controversy over whether or not the first petitioner (Atiku) was a Nigerian by birth and whether he was qualified to have contested the election, as raised by the APC, in its reply to the petition.

The court’s head, Justice Mohammed Garba, in the lead judgment, held among others, that the questions relating to the qualification of the first petitioners and whether he is a Nigerian by birth were outside the scope of the court’s enquiry.

Justice Garba noted that by the Electoral Act, the Court of Appeal was to service as the court of first instance in determining whether or not a person was validly returned as winner of an election to the office of the president.

He said the court is not to determine whether or not a petitioner or a candidate who lost an election was qualified to have contested the election.

Relying on a Supreme Court authority, the judge held that, at most, the third respondent (APC) should have filed a cross-petition on that issue.

The court also resolved the issue of whether or not the petition should be dismissed for the exclusion of Vice President Osinbajo (SAN) as a party, in the petitioners’ favour. The court, in rejecting a motion filed by INEC to that effect, held that Osinbajo could only be classified as interested party, but not a necessary and unavoidable party.

It added that, since Buhari and APC were parties in the petition and represented by lawyers, it was unnecessary to add Osinbajo as a party.

Were the petitioners duped?

Did the so-called expert and star witnesses invited by the petition collect money for a job not done? That was the question everyone was left with when the Justices handed down their decision. They evaluated the evidence given by said witnesses and concluded that it was worthless and added nothing to the petitioners’ case.

In their effort to establish their claim of the existence of a server, into which INEC allegedly transmitted election results electronically, the petitioners called, as their 59th witness, David Njorga, who described himself as a Kenyan Information and Communication Technology (ICT) expert.

The court noted that Njorga, in his testimony, said his expert report was based on a website, whose, owner he did not know. He gave the name of the website as www.factsdontlieng.com.

He said the website was created about two weeks after the results of the election were made public. He said the owner of the website was an ex-INEC staff, whose name he did not name, but chose to call the person a whistle-blower.

Justice Garba, after reviewing Njorga’s evidence, said the witness’s report is unreliable, coming from an expert.

The judge noted: “ The information he relied, was found on a website, whose owner he did not know. As can be seen from the evidence of PW59 (Njorga), it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as an expert evidence, because it did not contain any information, he got personally from INEC website, but from a third-party source, an unreliable source, who is anonymous, cannot be believed. It is the said whistle-blower that ought to give the evidence in this case.”

The court also faulted that evidence of another expert witness, Joseph Gbenga, who described himself as a Statistician, and through whom the petitioners tendered what they described as report of analysis of election results in some states they claimed were their focal states.

The court also described as hearsay and worthless, the evidence by the petitioners’’ star witness, former Aviation Minister, Osita Chidoka, who said he acted as PDP’s National Collation Officer.

Justice Garba, who noted that the evidence given by all the 62 witnesses called by the petitioners was not enough to prove the monumental allegations of malpractices, irregularities, non-compliance and related claims contained in the petition, was particular about the quality of Chidoka’s evidence.

He noted that by his testimony, the PW62, the petitioners’ star witness (Chidoka) admitted under cross-examination, that was in the petitioners’ situation room in Abuja throughout the election period.

“He did not personally witness what happened on the field and at the various polling units. He also admitted, under cross examination, that the collation of results was done manually. He also said he did not see INEC server, but that INEC kept assuring them of electronic transmission of election,” the judge said.

He concluded that Chidoka’s evidence amounted to hearsay, because he merely related all that he was told by those on the field, and concluded: “I agree with the learned counsel that the petitioners have not proved that the 2nd respondent (Buhari) was not validly elected by majority of lawful votes.”

Buba Galadima as a hearsay witness

After analyzing the evidence given by the petitioners’ first witness, Buba Galadima, the court refused to accord it any probative value and held that it was mere hearsay. The court noted that, while the petitioners made allegations bothering on harassment, intimidation, arrest and detention of its members during the election, they failed to call anyone, who experienced such treatment.

“They (the petitioners) did not call as witness any of those allegedly arrested and detained, except PW1, Buba Galadima, who said he was harassed and intimidated after the election. His evidence is of no value here in proving the allegation of criminal conduct and non-compliance,” Justice Garba said.

He added: “Whatever evidence led is tantamount to hearsay evidence, as they were never eye-witness. The security agents against whom the allegations were made, were never made parties to this petition.

When lawyers and members of the audience became disinterested in proceedings.

Many suddenly became disinterested in proceedings when, at the conclusion of the lead judgment, followed by a few words from Justice Abdul Aboki, the third member of the court’s panel, Justice Joseph Ikyegh began reading another lengthy supporting decision, which was seen as a repetition of what Justice Garba had said.