The Presidential Election Petition Court has published its full report, which confirmed the election of President Muhammadu Buhari as the true winner of the presidential elections on February 23.
The court had stated that the petitioners had not proved any of the grounds of the petition as known by law and, consequently, ruled out the petition in its entirety. “And the petition is dismissed in its entirety,” says the chief judge.
The ruling followed a petition dated March 18 by Atiku and PDP questioning the statement of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, that Buhari was the winner of the presidential elections on February 23.
The court dismissed part of the PDP’s request alleging that the ruling APC deployed security officers to manipulate the 2019 presidential elections. He said the PDP should have included the security agents allegedly involved in the petition as part of the lawsuit.
In addition, the court rejected INEC’s request to annul the documents and witnesses presented by the PDP because the petitioners miswritten the name of the main lawyer, the name of Levi Uzoukwu in his petition.
Regarding the allegations of bad electoral practices by the petitioners, the APC and INEC urged the court to dismiss it, alleging that it was vague and hazy.
He decided that the accusations were vague and hazy, as the respondents alleged, although no specific areas were mentioned where the bad practices supposedly took place.
In the main allegations of no possession of minimum education qualification and the presentation of an affidavit containing false information to the INEC against Buhari, the court after going through all the pig of the legal fireworks according to the councils, said, “the The second respondent (Buhari) was not only qualified but eminently qualified to contest the presidential elections. ”Therefore, he dismissed the petitioners’ petition saying that the arguments have no problem and it was a rebuttable presumption.
The court also noted that the evidence tending to question Buhari’s academic qualification was unreliable since the PDP was not the creator of the certificate.
Regarding the controversial use of the INEC server and card reader machines, the court said there was no subsistent electoral law that ordered the use of the smart card reader, a situation that it maintained, which has not changed since 2015.
He also said that card readers could only be used to administer the voter’s card and authenticate the voter, but not to authenticate the election results.
The five-member panel of the court said that the PDP request that suggests the use of a central server for the collection of results was therefore erroneous.
In part of the petition on the alleged use of a central server, the court noted that the PDP had said that Section 9 of the Electoral Law was amended in 2015.
The panel president said: “The problem is: can we really say that the amended section really empowered INEC to transmit the election results electronically?
“The court has only the duty to interpret the law. The court has no power to amend the law. ”
The court read the importation of the provision, stating that Section 22 (a) does not provide for the electronic transmission of results. Then, the court read other sections of the law and added that
“It is undeniable that the transmission of the electoral result is manual at different and all levels of the elections at different stages from the states to the national level.
“There is no provision authorizing the first defendant or any of its officials to transfer the election results to any of the servers.
“Nor is there anything that allows the first respondent to use the smart card reader for the collection of results. I don’t know if the card reader has replaced voters. “