The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) computer server shows that Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) triumphed in the February 23 election with about 1.6 million votes to defeat current President Muhammadu Buhari. The opposition candidate claims.
This is contained in the petition filed on Monday by the PDP and Mr Abubakar, to query the victory of Mr Buhari and his All Progressives Congress (APC). The petition, which sought to count on 50 units of documents, was once filed earlier at the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal in Abuja against INEC, Mr Buhari and the APC respectively.
On February 27, INEC declared that Mr Buhari received 15,191,847 votes to defeat Mr Atiku, whom it said polled 11,262,978 votes. But the petitioners stated in their 139-page petition that “from the facts in the 1st respondent’s (INEC’s) server…the true, authentic and correct results” from “state to state computation” confirmed that Mr Abubakar polled a total of 18,356,732 votes to defeat Mr Buhari whom they said scored 16,741,430 votes.
According to it, the results had been the total votes scored through the candidates in 35 states and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, as there used to be “no document on server” about the results from Rivers State as of February 25.
By this, Mr Abubakar claims to have defeated Mr Buhari with 1,615,302 votes. One of the five grounds of the petition also tends to resuscitate the allegation that Mr Buhari used to be now not certified to run for the workplace of the president on the grounds that he did no longer possess the constitutional minimum qualification of a college certificate.
The 5 grounds of the petition read,
“The 2nd respondent (Buhari) was now not duly elected with the aid of the majority of lawful votes forged at the election.
“The election of the 2nd respondent is invalid by means of course of corrupt practices.
“The election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by using reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
“The 2nd respondent was once at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election.
“The 2nd respondent submitted to the 1st Respondent an affidavit containing false information of a crucial nature in aid of his qualification for the stated election.
”Arguing that Mr Buhari was now not certified to run for the workplace of the president, the petitioners argued in part, “The petitioners stated that the 2nd respondent (Buhari) does not possess the minimum academic qualification to contest the election to the workplace of the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“The petitioners stated that through Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), each political party shall no longer later than 60 days earlier than the date appointed for election submit to the Commission in the prescribed structure the list of the candidates to participate in the elections.
“Further, by using Section 31(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the listing or facts submitted by way of every candidate shall be be accompanied through an affidavit sworn to by the candidate at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or Federal Capital Territory indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional necessities for election into that office.
“The 2nd respondent crammed and submitted Form CF001 to the 1st Respondent, which used to be declared earlier than the Commissioner for Oaths at the Registry of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on the eighth day of October 2018. The stated Form CF001 is accompanied through an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT indicating that the 1st Respondent received same.
“The petitioners aver that the said Form CF001 was padded by using the 2nd Respondent and submitted to the 1st Respondent for the Office of President thus used in addition to the accompanied through the Curriculum Vitae of the 2nd Respondent as properly as GENERAL FORM OF AFFIDAVIT duly sworn to by using the 2nd respondent at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, alongside with copies of his Membership Card of the 3rd Respondent and Voter Card.
“The facts submitted to the 1st respondent (INEC) by way of the 2nd respondent (Buhari) is false and of a essential nature in aid of his training qualification, notwithstanding that he had declared in the stated sworn affidavit as follows:
‘I hereby declare that all the answers, records and particulars I have given in this Form, are true and correct and I have to the great of my knowledge, fulfilled all the necessities for skills for the workplace I am looking for to be elected’.
”They cited that the educational institutions Buhari “claimed to have attended and the certificates introduced by him namely, Elementary School Daura and Mai Aduaa between 1948 and 1952, Middle School Katsina between 1953 and 1956 and Katsina Provincial College (now Government College, Katsina) between 1956 to 1961 and referred to by using the 2nd respondent in his curriculum vitae connected to Form CF 001, have not been in existence as of those referred to dates.
”They added, “The 2nd respondent in Form CF 001 filled and submitted by him to the 1st Respondent at Paragraph C, Column 2, Page 3, wrote “WASC,” thereby falsely claiming that qualification whereas there was once no qualification recognized by WASC as of 1961.
“The petitioners contend that the 2nd Respondent was, at the fabric time, no longer qualified to contest election for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“The petitioners further aver that all votes purportedly solid for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on twenty third February 2019 all through the Presidential Election and as in consequence declared through the 1st Respondent on February 27, are wasted votes in that the 2nd Respondent was once no longer certified to contest the stated election in the first place or at all.
”The petitioners named 21 Senior Advocates of Nigeria and 18 different attorneys to show up for them during the petition. The criminal crew is led by way of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Livy Uzoukwu. They sought amongst their 5 principal prayers, that the tribunal determine that Mr Buhari “was not duly elected through a majority of lawful votes solid in the stated election” and consequently his declaration and return via INEC “as the President of Nigeria is unlawful, undue, null, void and of no effect.
”They also prayed that Mr Abubakar having been “duly and validly elected” ought to be “returned as President of Nigeria, having polled the easiest number of lawful votes polled at the election to the office of the President of Nigeria held on February 23 and having satisfied the constitutional necessities for the stated election.
They sought “an order directing the 1st respondent (INEC) to hand the Certificate of Return to the 1st petitioner (Atiku) as the duly elected President of Nigeria”. They additionally requested the tribunal to rule that Mr Buhari “was at the time of the election no longer certified to contest the stated election”, and that he “submitted to the Commission affidavit containing false facts of a crucial nature in resource of his qualification for the stated election”.
However, they sought as their choice prayer, “that the election to the office of the president of Nigeria held on February 23, be nullified and an organised election ordered. ”The petitioners are relying on 50 units of documents which they, in the petition, gave INEC the be aware to produce the original copies of these in its custody.
Some of these are,
“INEC Nomination Form CF001 of the 2nd respondent (Buhari);
all INEC end result sheets;(Form EC8 Series), EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E – Certificate of Return;
PDP Party Membership Cards;
INEC Voter Cards; all witnesses’ party membership cards; and all Witnesses’ Voter Cards.
”The PDP and Mr Atiku in the petition also sought to rely on, “the circulars/corrigenda/manuals issued by INEC for the habits of the Presidential Election held on 23/2/2019; Polling Unit substances checklist; precis of complete registered voters on units’ basis; summary of PVCs collected on units’ basis; Voter Registers and letters of complaints about irregularities and malpractices throughout the election addressed to the INEC/Police/other applicable agencies/institutions.
”They additionally sought to count the number of “security reports pertaining to to the election video/audio recordings/DVD/CD referring to to the Election; Election Observers’ or Observers’ Reports; Newspaper/Television/ Radio reviews and news; appointment letters and tags of PDP agents; specialist reviews and analysis; and pix and GSM and different telephone outputs”.