The 2019 presidential poll might have come and gone, but the dust raised from its outcome is yet to settle.

What remains certainly sure for now as May 29 is approaching is that President Buhari will be sworn in again, for a second term in office.

This does not mean that the story cannot change on who rules the country from May 29 till May 29, 2023. But this will be solely dependent on the verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal and the Supreme Court which has final say on the issue.

Besides, the PDP and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar have been advised to move on without dissipating their energy on legal war.

The first advice came from Olisa Agbakoba, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who explained why PDP, and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, may lose in court. To many political observers, this statement was seen as coming from an unusual quarter, considering the previous position held by the senior lawyer towards Buhari’s presidency.

Agbakoba, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, (NBA), had succinctly urged Atiku to assume the role of a statesman instead of going to court.

He pointed out that it would be difficult for the PDP to prove that the votes in the South-East were reduced and to identify whether INEC or APC was responsible.

In his opinion, Agbakoba insisted that there is a lot Atiku can do even though he is not the president instead of going to court.

He explained further: “I feel that going to court will not necessarily prove that the election was marred by massive irregularities.

“I feel that the stage Abubakar Atiku has attained now is a national one. And having garnered 12 million votes, I feel that, against all odds, the side of irregularities that came out of the election predicts more to the weak electoral processes that we have.

“I should advise that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar moves into the position of a statesman and leaves a legacy by assisting the civil society, the small parties and the PDP in reconstructing Nigeria on the question of a strong electoral system and the question of a strong legal system.

“There’s a lot Atiku can do even though he is not the president. At 74, 73 or 72 years of age, I feel that this should be his last chance. And more so, what will the petition’s outcome be?

In the same manner, human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), also insisted that, Alhaji Atiku had “insurmountable legal obstacles” to face at the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal

Falana, however, said in a statement that the former Vice-President should not be blackmailed not to take the legal step, adding that the calls prevailing on him not to approach the tribunal were uncalled for.

He recalled that President Buhari who was declared the winner of the February 23 election had challenged his losses in court in the successive presidential elections of 2003, 2007 and 2011.

He added: “Regrettably, however, the failure of the PDP and APC-led Federal Government to reform the electoral process has created insurmountable legal obstacles for election petitioner. ”

He also stated that the frustration of election petitioners has been compounded by several judicial authorities, with some decisions holding that “an election cannot be questioned on grounds of corrupt practices”.

Also sharing his view, Mr. Kabir Akingbolu, a lawyer and specialist in election petition matter, admitted that it is within the right of the PDP’s candidate to approach the tribunal but argued that the standard approved and the quality of evidence expected by the law is difficult to surmount by any presidential candidate.

To this end, he stated that rather than being a panacea to election rigging, election petition tribunal or electoral law set a lot of obstacles in the way of any petitioner, who is willing to challenge the validity or authenticity of election result.

“The electoral jurisprudence in Nigeria has a lot of precedence to show that to upturn an election result; a petitioner must be needlessly be a wizard. First of all, by the state of our laws, any result declared by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), enjoys the sanctity of inviolability. In other words, the law has already presumed that the result is valid and that anybody who challenges the validity of that election results will have to prove beyond reasonable doubts how and why those results are not genuine. This is called the presumption of regularity of official act under the law,” he said.

Another legal practitioner, Mr. Olusola Salawu, while analysing the issue, made reference to a few cases why Atiku’s decision to upturn the result of the election might be a tall dream.

He said: “In MD Yussuf vs Obasanjo, it was held that an election cannot be questioned on grounds of corrupt practices. In Falae v Obasanjo, it was held that it has to be proved that financial inducement was authorised by the winner of an election. In Buhari v Obasanjo, it was held that the onus of proof on electoral malpractice rests on the petitioner. Besides, several fraudulent elections have been upheld under the doctrine of substantial compliance.

“In Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 50 WRN 1 at 311, Pat-Acholonu JSC condemned the massive rigging of the 2003 general election but expressed serious regret over the impossibility of satisfactorily proving nationwide spread of ineptitude, violence, intimidation and other acts of terrorisation as well as other barefaced acts that literally chill the bones and wound as Shakespeare said in Macbeth (‘make the sinneth heart knock at my few evidence the use of nature’) some of the revelations, that is, where the few evidence was led and proved are blood cuddling”.

On the insurmountable legal hurdles to be crossed before a petitioner can have a fraudulent election annulled by a court in Nigeria, Salawu quoted his Lordship as saying that: “The very big obstacle that anyone who seeks to have the election of the president or governor upturned is the very large number of witnesses he must call, to the size of the respective constituency. In a country like our own, he may have to call about 250,000 – 300,000 witnesses. By the time the court would have heard from all of them with the way our present law is couched, the incumbent would have long finished his tenure and left his office and even if the petitioner finally wins, it will be an empty victory bereft of any substance.”

Salawu went further to hold that since allegations of electoral malpractice are criminal in nature, a petitioner is required to prove them beyond reasonable doubt.

•Excerpted from a Daily Sun report

Update news