GRPolitics
Presidential tribunal begins hearing of Atiku’s petition against Buhari, INEC
BY: Oliseama Okwuchukwu
The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja has fixed today (Wednesday) to commence pre-hearing session on four petitions that are seeking to invalidate President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-election. Buhari and Atiku.
The petitioners are separately challenging the declaration of President Buhari as the legitimate winner of the February 23 presidential election. Vanguard learned that the tribunal has already issued pre-hearing notice on all the parties.
Basically, the session affords the tribunal the opportunity to meet the parties with a view to setting up modalities to be adopted in the actual hearing of substantive issues in dispute. Meantime, aside the petition marked CA/PEPC/002/2019, which was entered against Buhari by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and its candidate, Atiku, on March 18, the second petition marked CA/ PEPC/001/2019, was by the presidential candidate of the Hope Democratic Party, HDP, Chief Ambrose Owuru who secured a total of 1,663 in the election.
While the third petition, CA/PEPC/004/2019, was lodged by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Movement, PDM, Pastor Aminchi Habu, who is seeking a fresh election on the basis that his party’s logo was not included in the ballot paper.
The last petition with suit No. CA/PEPC/003/2019, was filed by the Coalition For Change, C4C and its presidential candidate, Geff Chizee Ojinka, who are contending that Buhari’s re-election was vitiated by substantial non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions.
The petitioners maintained that the irregularity substantially affected the election, “such that the 1st Respondent was not entitled to be returned as the Winner of the Presidential election”. Remarkably, unlike in all the other petitions where only Buhari, the APC and INEC were cited as Respondents, the C4C, which garnered a total of 2,391 votes at the presidential poll, cited the Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, as the 2nd Respondent in its case.
It will be recalled that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, had on February 27, declared that Buhari garnered a total of 15,191,847 votes to defeat his closest rival, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the opposition PDP, who it said polled a total of 11,262,978 votes.
However, Atiku had almost immediately the result was announced, vowed to upturn it in court. Specifically, in their joint petition, Atiku and his party, insisted that data they secured from INEC’s server, revealed that they clearly defeated President Buhari with over 1.6million votes. The petitioners alleged that INEC had at various stages of the presidential election, unlawful allocated votes to President Buhari, saying they would adduce oral and documentary evidence to show that result of the election as announced by the electoral body, did not represent the lawful valid votes cast Atiku alleged that in some states, INEC, deducted lawful votes that accrued to him, in its bid to ensure that Buhari was returned back to office.
The petitioners said they would call evidence of statisticians, forensic examiners and finger-print experts at the hearing of the petition to establish that the scores credited to Buhari were not the product of actual votes validly cast at the polling units.
“The Petitioners plead and shall rely on electronic video recordings, newspaper reports, photographs and photographic images of several infractions of the electoral process by the Respondents”, they added.
More so, in one of the five grounds of the petition, Atiku and the PDP maintained that Buhari was not qualified to run for the office of the President, contending that he does not possess the constitutional minimum qualification of a school certificate. The petitioners serialised results that were recorded from each state of the federation in order to prove that the alleged fraudulent allocation of votes to Buhari and the APC, took place at the polling units, the ward collating centres, local government collating centres and the State collating centres.
They argued that proper collation and summation of the presidential election results would show that contrary to what INEC declared, Atiku, garnered a total of 18,356,732 votes, ahead of Buhari who they said got a total of 16,741,430 votes.
“The Petitioners state that Smart Card Readers deployed by the 1st Respondent, in addition to accreditation, equally transmitted electronically the results of voting from polling units directly to the server of the 1st Respondent.
“The Presiding Officers of the 1st Respondent directly inputted the results from the polling units at the end of voting and transmitted directly to the server, in addition to manually taking the Form EC8As to the Wards for collation.
“The 1st Respondent is hereby given notice to produce the records of results from each polling unit uploaded and transmitted electronically by officials of the 1st Respondent through smart card readers to the 1st Respondent’s Servers.
“The Petitioners plead and rely on the 1st Respondent’s Manual Technologies 2019, and notice is hereby given to the 1st Respondent to produce same at the trial. The 1st Respondent’s agents at the polling units used the Smart Card Reader for electronic collation and transmission of results.
“The Petitioners plead and shall rely on and play at the trial, the video demonstration by the 1st Respondent of the deployment of Smart Card Reader for authentication of accreditation and for transmission of data. Wherefore, the Petitioners pray jointly and severally against the Respondents as follows: “That it may be determined that the 2nd Respondent (Buhari) was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the said election and therefore the declaration and return of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent as the President of Nigeria is unlawful, undue, null, void and of no effect.
“That it may be determined that the 1st Petitioner (Atiku) was duly and validly elected and ought to be returned as President of Nigeria, having polled the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election to the office of the President of Nigeria held on 23rd February 2019 and having satisfied the constitutional requirements for the said election. “An order directing the 1st Respondent to issue Certificate of Return to the 1st Petitioner as the duly elected President of Nigeria.
“That it may be determined that the 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election. “That it may be determined that the 2nd Respondent submitted to the Commission affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election”. In the alternative, the petitioners prayed the tribunal to nullify the February 23 presidential election and order a fresh poll.
However, in a swift reaction, both Buhari and the APC, filed preliminary objections to challenge the competence of the petitions, even as they challenged Atiku’s locus-standi to even participate in the Presidential poll. In his objection, Buhari described Atiku as a serial loser, boasting that he had always defeated him in every electoral contest that both of them took part in.
President Buhari insisted that electorates always chose him ahead of Atiku in both inter-party or intra-party contests, using the 2014 presidential primaries the All Progressives Congress, APC, as an instance.
“In particular, at the primary election conducted by the 3rd respondent (APC) in 2014, to pick its presidential candidate for the 2015 election, the 1st petitioner and respondent, amongst others, were the candidates; and while the respondent polled 3,430 votes, 1st petitioner came a distant third with 954 votes”. Besides, President Buhari, queried the powers of the tribunal to nullify his election victory at the poll, contending that the joint petition Atiku and the PDP entered against him was incompetent as it was based on conjectures.
Insisting that reliefs the petitioners are seeking from the tribunal were “vague, nebulous and lacking in specificity”, argued that most of the issues and grounds of the petition were not only “mutually exclusive”, but also outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
He contended that by virtue of section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, only the Federal High Court or High Court of a State has jurisdiction to adjudicate on some the issues, among which included the allegation that he was bereft of the requisite educational qualification. Buhari told the tribunal that contrary to Atiku’s allegation that he submitted false academic qualifications in the Form CF001 he used to secure clearance from the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, he said he was at the time of the election, “eminently qualified to contest the election, having not only the minimum qualification of reading up to secondary school level, but rose to the peak of his career as a General in the Nigerian Army with cognate experience and training.
Buhari said he has more educational qualification than Atiku. Likewise, his party, the APC, in its own objection, branded Atiku an alien, alleging that he is not a Nigerian by birth and therefore was not qualified to contest the February 23 presidential poll. APC told the tribunal that the PDP candidate is a Cameroonian.
According to APC, Atiku, was born on November 25, 1946 in Jada, Adamawa, in Northern Cameroon and is therefore a citizen of Cameroon and not a Nigerian by birth. It told the tribunal that prior to 1919, Cameroon was being administered by Germany, adding that following the defeat of Germany in World War 1, which ended in 1918, Cameroon, became part of a League of Nations mandate territory which consisted of French Cameroon and British Cameroon in 1919. APC noted that in 1961, a plebiscite was held in British Cameroon to determine whether the people preferred to stay in Cameroon or align with Nigeria. It stressed that while Northern Cameroon preferred a union with Nigeria, the Southern Cameroon chose alignment with the mother country, saying it was as a result of the plebiscite that Northern Cameroon, which included Adamawa, became part of Nigeria. The ruling party argued that contrary to Atiku’s claims in his petition, he had no right to be voted for as a candidate in the election to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on February 23, 2019.
Buhari, APC, out to cover corruption, incompetence- PDP It averred that by reason of Atiku’s ineligibility to contest the election, all votes credited to him and the PDP in the February 23 election ought to be deemed as wasted votes. APC contended that most of the claims contained in Atiku’s petition have become statute barred, arguing that the Tribunal was therefore bereft of the jurisdiction to entertain it.
However, in a further response he filed before the tribunal, Atiku, rebuked the APC, describing the allegation that he is a Cameroonian as puerile, face saving, vexatious, absolutely and completely unfounded.
Atiku maintained that he is a full blooded Nigerian, even as he urged the tribunal to ignore what he termed as “extraneous facts, contradictory, diversionary, evasive, speculative and vague assertions”, by both the APC and President Buhari. Atiku told the tribunal that contrary to APC’s allegation that he is an alien, he said he is a Nigerian by birth and a Fulani by tribe, adding that his parents were from Jigawa and Sokoto states. INEC replacing servers nationwide, PDP alleges
Source: Vanguard
When the President called to inform me of his decision to magnanimously confer on me the the National Award of Commander of the Federal Republic, CFR, on account of my much advertised role in the struggle for the validation of the June 12th election and affirmation of Chief MKO Abiola’s mandate, my first reaction was why only me and not all those unsung heroes.
Those officers and men who actively participated in that struggle, risking their careers and even lives.
Although I was one of the leaders of that movement within the military, my contribution was by no means bigger than theirs.
While I have been recognised and celebrated, including this National Honour by the President, they have remained anonymous.
It is therefore incumbent upon me to reveal the identity of these patriots if only to acknowledge and commend their contributions to the emergence of the current democratic dispensation.
The fact that Chief Abiola, the presumed winner of the June 12th election won over 80% of the Armed Forces votes, clearly demonstrated the contribution of the other members of the military. I should add that this list is by no means exhaustive.
There are a lot more participants who have remained unknown to me since they served under others.
I apologise to all those whose names I must have missed. May God recognise and reward your sacrifice.
Top on my list is my deputy at the Armoured Corps Centre and School, Col MA Garba, whose commitment was so strong that he continued with the execution of our plans after some of us were arrested, detained and mercifully retired in October, 1993. He went on, as he should, to attain the enviable rank of a Major General in the army. Others are:
Others are:
-Lt col Lawal Jaafaru Isa.
-Lt col UF Ahmed.
-Lt col MS Dasuki.
-Lt col ML Gwadabe.
-Lt col J. Temlong.
-Lt col Musa Shehu.
-Lt col Chris Eze.
-Lt col HM Dzarma.
-Lt col Isa Jibrin.
-Lt col JOS Oshanupin.
-Lt Col A Oloruntoba(kabiesi Olugbede of Gbede kingdom).
-Lt col Moke.
-Lt col Happy Bulus.
-Lt col Olagunsoye Oyinlola.
-Col J Okai.
-Col E. Ndubueze.
-Lt col Yakubu Muazu.
-Lt col Yahaya Abubakar ( current Etsu Nupe).
-Major Saad Abubakar (current Sultan of Sokoto).
-Maj Abba Maimalari.
-Maj Jamil Tahir.
-Maj Buzugbe.
-Maj LP Aprezi.
-Maj MK Yake.
-Maj J Dawah.
-Maj Suleiman Wali.
-Maj Dauda Komo.
-Maj Lucky Torrie.
-Maj JS Zaruwa.
-Maj M Sumaye.
-Maj Sani Bawa.
-Maj Ndaliman.
Maj Ahmed.
-Maj M Bawa.
-Lt col JB Ahmadu.
-Capt Junaid Bindawa.
-Capt Lar.
I therefore accept this award with all sense of humility on behalf of all these officers and men. Obviously, it goes without saying that this award will be doubly more meaningful if the democracy we all fought for delivers the real dividends.
This can happen only if leaders at all levels govern with the fear of God and in accordance with the tenets of democracy.
It remains the hope and prayers of all patriots that nothing is done to derail this infant democracy.
To achieve the stability and progress of our democracy, leaders must prioritise good governance over politicking for self aggrandizement.
The three co-equal branches of government must operate independently while cooperating with each other.
One enduring lesson from the conduct of the officers and men is their decision to operate above sycophancy but to hold their superior officers to account.
Sadly, this does not appear to have a positive impact on our political leaders. Sycophancy everywhere has become the scourge of selfless and accountable leadership. It is the reason for the arrogance and vanity we see in our leaders at all levels. Men of straw are widely and falsely being elevated to the position of icons by self seeking sycophants.
Mr President must lead in a war against sycophancy in all its forms. This must allow for no exceptions including the rapidly growing trend of naming and renaming public institutions, facilities and other infrastructure after a President or State Governor while in office.
The other day, the Senate President was reported to have predicted that President Bola Tinubu will win the 2027 election with 99.9% of the votes! Even allowing for the fact that this Senate President is widely known for his humorous incitement, Mr President will do well to shun such oracles.
God bless Nigeria.
Abubakar Dangiwa Umar, Colonel (Rtd)
The Kogi State Government has commended Hon. James Abiodun Faleke, Member Representing Ikeja Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, for his unbending commitment to the security and wellbeing of his home state, describing him as “a patriotic Kogite who leads by example.”
Faleke, an indigene of Kogi State, recently donated a brand-new Hilux patrol vehicle to support the operations of the newly commissioned Smart Police Divisional Headquarters in Ekinrin-Adde, Ijumu Local Government Area.
The high-tech facility which was facilitated by the Nigeria Police Trust Fund in its collaboration with the Government of Kogi State to ensure security at every corner of the state by modernizing and digitizing security operations in the state.
Speaking with journalists on Sunday, the Kogi State Commissioner for Information and Communications, Kingsley Femi Fanwo, conveyed the appreciation of Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo to the federal lawmaker, stating that Hon. Faleke has demonstrated what it means to place security above politics and people’s well-being above personal ambition.
“The Government of Kogi State wishes to reecho the open commendation earlier given by His Excellency during the commissioning of the Smart Police Divisional Headquarters,” Fanwo said.
“As a Government, we appreciate the demonstrative contribution of Hon. James Faleke to the security architecture and infrastructure of the state. This is how to lead the people with emphasis on security above politics, patriotism above scheming with the lives of our people.”
Fanwo added that Hon. Faleke has played key underground roles in support of intelligence, logistics, and coordination with security agencies, working quietly but effectively with the State Government to ensure lives and property are better protected in Kogi State.
The Commissioner expressed confidence that Faleke’s latest intervention would significantly strengthen security not only in Ijumu but across Okunland, Kogi West, and the entire state.
“This is one intervention that we are sure will improve the security of Ijumu, Okunland, Kogi West, and Kogi as a whole. This is how to make an impact without playing to the gallery. What the people need are concrete interventions that can save lives, not selfish arrangements that protect personal interests at the expense of the people.
“The people know those who are genuinely working for their security, those working closely with the State Government to achieve lasting peace in Kogi State. They also know those who are merely playing politics with the lives of the people.”
The Government urged political and business leaders of Kogi origin to emulate Hon. Faleke’s sense of responsibility and selfless service to the people.
“Hon. James Faleke has set an example for others to emulate. He has shown that the lives of his people matter. He is not doing all of these to protect a personal interest or his investment or the investment of his friends. He is doing it to protect the Kogi people, his people”, he said.
Fanwo also disclosed that the Government is closely monitoring the activities of illegal miners and their collaborators, vowing that those compromising the security of the state through economic sabotage will face stiff consequences.
“We are aware of the activities of illegal miners and their enablers. Let it be known that the state will not tolerate any action that puts the lives of our people at risk. We are taking bold steps to ensure that criminal actors do not jeopardize the peace we are working hard to build.”
The Kogi State Government reaffirmed its commitment to partnering with patriotic stakeholders like Hon. James Faleke in its mission to secure every corner of the state and preserve the gains already made in law enforcement and public safety.
GRPolitics
The Intellectual Sins of June 12: A Reckoning with Nigeria’s Democratic Conscience
Article Written by Professor Ojo Emmanuel Ademola
Every June 12, Nigeria observes a significant date that embodies both the aspirations for democracy and the painful betrayal of that dream. This day commemorates the 1993 presidential election, celebrated as the most free and fair in the country’s history but ultimately annulled by the military regime led by General Ibrahim Babangida.
While the focus has often been on the political and military figures involved, there has been less emphasis on the intellectual shortcomings that contributed to this democratic failure.
These shortcomings—the “intellectual sins” of June 12—include silence, complicity, and ideological failures that continue to impact Nigeria’s pursuit of democracy.
The Election That Could Have Changed Everything:
On June 12, 1993, Nigerians came together to vote for Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola, a well-known southern Muslim celebrated for his wealth, philanthropy, and political acumen. His electoral victory was more than just a tally of votes; it became a powerful symbol of national unity and a collective longing for civilian governance following years of military rule.
The military’s annulment of the election results, based on vague security concerns and claims of irregularities, was profoundly disappointing. This decision was not merely a political manoeuvre; it represented a significant betrayal of the democratic values that the election was meant to uphold.
The Silence of the Intellectual Class:
One of the most troubling aspects of the June 12 crisis was the widespread silence—or, even worse, the rationalizations—by many in Nigeria’s intellectual elite. University professors, public commentators, and thought leaders, who should have served as the nation’s moral compass, largely failed to speak out against the annulment. Some even justified it, wrapping their arguments in legal jargon or appealing to national stability.
The silence in this situation was not neutral; it was an act of complicity. During times of national crisis, when the intelligentsia chooses to remain silent, this absence is not merely a lack of comment—it is an endorsement of the status quo. Nigeria’s intellectual class’s failure to provide a strong defence of democracy in 1993 highlighted a more profound issue: a lack of genuine commitment to democratic governance.
Ethnic Chauvinism and the Failure of National Integration:
The annulment highlighted the fragility of Nigeria’s national identity. Although Abiola had widespread appeal across the country, the decision to invalidate his victory was perceived mainly as influenced by northern political elites who were uneasy about a southern Muslim becoming president. This perception, whether accurate or not, strengthened the belief that Nigeria’s democracy is held captive by ethnic and regional interests.
Once again, the intellectual class fell short. Instead of confronting the ethnicization of politics, many scholars and commentators either overlooked it or contributed to it. The chance to use June 12 as a catalyst for national integration and civic nationalism was missed.
The Legal and Constitutional Vacuum:
The events of June 12 highlighted Nigeria’s fragile legal and constitutional framework. The annulment of the election exposed the country’s institutions as inadequate in preventing executive overreach and safeguarding the electoral process. At that time, there was a lack of an independent judiciary capable of contesting military actions, an ineffective legislature to oversee government activities, and a civil society that was not sufficiently strong to mobilize in response.
The Institutional weakness in Nigeria was not a coincidence; it stemmed from years of intellectual neglect. The country’s legal scholars, constitutional designers, and policy thinkers did not create a system robust enough to resist authoritarian tendencies. Consequently, the annulment of electoral processes directly resulted from this inadequacy.
The Myth of Transition Without Transformation:
The military’s commitment to transitioning Nigeria to civilian rule was fraught with inconsistencies. The annulment of the June 12 elections exposed the illusion that democratic governance could be realised without a fundamental change in the country’s political culture. The transition program itself was characterized by a top-down approach, a lack of transparency, and a focus on maintaining the interests of the elite.
Many intellectuals were drawn into the myth surrounding a purportedly democratic transition process. By actively participating in advisory roles, they inadvertently lent credibility to a system that lacked true democratic principles. Their failure to critically examine the underlying foundations of this transition program represents a significant intellectual oversight.
The Repetition of History:
The aftermath of June 12 has had lasting repercussions for Nigeria, as the country seems trapped in a cycle of repeating past mistakes. Key issues such as electoral malpractice, the dominance of elites over democratic institutions, and the suppression of dissent are still prevalent in the political landscape. Unfortunately, society has not fully grasped or embraced the vital lessons from June 12, indicating a failure to learn from history.
The recurring failures In Nigeria’s democracy highlight a deeper intellectual shortcoming, as there is a reluctance to engage in critical self-reflection and necessary institutional reform. It is simpler for leaders to honour June 12 through ceremonies and speeches rather than address the uncomfortable realities that emerge from this historical moment.
A Path to Redemption:
Nigeria needs to initiate a new democratic renaissance to address the intellectual shortcomings highlighted on June 12. This revival should focus on enhancing civic education, implementing institutional reforms, and reaffirming a strong commitment to democratic values.
1. Enhancing civic education within society is essential to ensuring the vitality of democracy. This involves prioritizing the teaching of democratic principles, critical thinking, and active citizenship in schools, universities, and media outlets. By doing so, citizens will become more aware of their rights and responsibilities, thus fostering a more engaged and informed populace.
2. Strengthen Institutions: A functioning democracy requires that the judiciary, electoral commission, and legislature operate without political interference. Achieving this necessitates legal reforms and a significant cultural shift in how power is exercised and contested within society.
3. Empower a New Generation of Public Intellectuals: Nigeria requires independent thinkers who prioritize democratic values over ethnic or political affiliations. These intellectuals should courageously challenge authority and advocate for democratic principles, unafraid of potential repercussions.
4. Confront the Past Honestly: The June 12 crisis serves as an important historical event that should be incorporated into school curricula and discussed in public forums. It carries significant moral lessons that are essential for understanding the past. By acknowledging and confronting this history, Nigeria can work towards establishing a more just and democratic future.
Conclusion: Democracy as a Moral Imperative
June 12 serves as a powerful reminder of Nigeria’s complex democratic journey, highlighting both its potential and challenges. Rather than merely marking the date with hollow statements, engaging in a genuine reflection on the past is essential. The mistakes of that time—characterized by silence, complicity, and ideological failures—should not be repeated. As we honour this day, we must recommit ourselves to the ideals embodied by Abiola’s victory, including justice, unity, and the empowerment of the people.
Democracy transcends being merely a system of governance; it is fundamentally a moral obligation. Every citizen, particularly those influential in shaping public opinion, has the responsibility to uphold and defend democratic principles with bravery, clarity, and firm conviction.
FORPS Donates Boreholes to 2 Bwari Communities in Abuja
Nigeria Doesn’t Need Applause—It Needs Access
A Joyous Milestone: Pamela Iweze Celebrates Daughter’s Graduation with Pride, Purpose, and a Message of Hope
LASG Acquires New Outboard Engines For Optimum Boat Performance
Elon Musk builds Hotel in Mars, Sets to launch soon at $5million per night – Photos
