The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Atiku Abubakar, Wednesday lost bid to reopen argument on issues of certain objections and competence filed by the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, against his petition.
The Tribunal held that Atiku cannot be allowed to reopen the said argument especially to file counter affidavit on the objection made against his petition because the mandatory seven days to do so had elapsed.
The APC through his counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), had filed a motion dated May 15, in which he prayed the presidential election petition tribunal to strike out the entire petition of the PDP candidate on the ground that the petition did not comply with relevant laws.
In the alternative, Fagbemi had on June 11, while moving the motion, prayed that several paragraphs in Atiku’s petition be expunged, claiming that they were vague allegations that couldn’t be supported by law.
Also, Fagbemi listed 10 states in Atiku’s petition where specific allegations known to law were made but he also urged the tribunal to strike out the allegations against the Nigerian Army, Nigerian Police, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo who were alleged to have committed acts of violence on the Election Day in favour of president Buhari but the petitioner failed to join them in the petition.
Although, the legal team of Atiku and his party, led by Dr. Levi Uzoukwu filed a notice of objection but the team failed to file a counter affidavit to deny the claim of the APC in its motion.
In the bid to rectify the error, Atiku’s counsel had filed a motion in which the tribunal was prayed to set aside the proceedings of June 11, when the APC’s motion challenging the competence of Atiku’s petition was moved.
The PDP legal team claimed that Atiku and PDP were denied the right to fair hearing and that the APC caused confusion when it filed two motions dated May 14 and May 15 on same issue but later withdrew that of May 14.
The team urged the tribunal to allow them to reopen argument and to grant them leave to file counter affidavit against the APC motion.
Fagbemi, who stood for APC, Yunus Ustaz Usman, who stood for INEC and Wole Olanipekun, who stood for President Muhammadu Buhari vehemently opposed Atiku’s request to reopen argument and to file counter affidavit on the ground that time to do so had expired by law.
Further, Fagbemi insisted that Atiku’s legal team did not give cogent and verifiable reasons upon which the request to reopen argument and file counter affidavit can be granted by the tribunal. He pleaded with the tribunal to dismiss the Atiku’s motion.
In the ruling delivered by the chairman, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, the tribunal agreed with Fagbemi that the mandatory seven days for Atiku to respond to APC motion on the competence of his petition had expired.
Justice Garba held that it was established beyond doubt that Atiku’s legal team was served with the APC’s motion on May 16, a day after it was filed and that it was a fatal mistake for Atiku’s legal team to have chosen and elected to file only notice of objection but refused to file counter affidavit as required by law to dispute the claims of the APC.
The tribunal also disagreed with Atiku that he was denied right to fair hearing because his legal team was adequately represented in all the proceedings but chose to conduct their case the way it suited them.
Justice Garba held that he proceedings of June 11, as they relate to the APC’s motion challenging the competence of Atiku’s petition cannot be set aside by the tribunal because cogent and verifiable reasons to grant such request of setting the proceedings aside were not advanced by the PDP legal team.
In his words, “We agreed that the court has the power to exercise discretion but in the instant case, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and judiciously and since the petitioner in this matter did not advance cogent and verifiable reasons for exercising discretion in his favour, we hereby refuse to do so”.
The tribunal also agreed with Fagbemi that court decisions or proceedings can only be set aside in the face of fraud, lack of fact, lack of jurisdiction and absence of substantial reason or where it is established that the court had been misled adding that in the instant matter, no evidence was advanced to justify the failure of the petitioner to comply with mandatory seven days within which to respond or to oppose the motion duly served on him on May 16.
“From the established fact, the petitioner failed to make out case for setting aside proceedings of June 11 and also failed even up till today to file counter affidavit”, therefore, the motion by the petitioner that his argument be reopened is bound to fail and is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit”.
However, the pre-hearing session was brought to an end today while full-scale hearing in the substantive petition begins tomorrow.
Comments