The Presidential campaigner of the All Federal Republic Of Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), General Muhammadu Buhari have filed 20 further evidence of entreaty challenging the judgement of the Presidential Election Petitions Court which upheld the election of President Umaru Yar'Adua arsenic the victor of the April polls.
It would be recalled that the Presidential Election Petitions Court had in a consentaneous judgement read by Justice Toilet Afolabi Fabiyi, dismissed Buhari's request as incompetent and that he had failed to turn out beyond sensible uncertainty that the constituted non conformity affected the consequence of the presidential election. The court upheld the election of Yar'Adua arsenic validly elected President of Nigeria.
Buhari had through his Counsel, Microphone Ahamba (SAN) in an eight evidence of entreaty challenged the full finding of the court which held that he had offered no evidence which was capable of affecting the consequence of the election and subsequently dismissed his petition.
The ANPP presidential campaigner in his notice of entreaty filed at the vertex court at the weekend statedthat the learned Justices of the Court of Entreaty erred in law when they held that there was a load of cogent evidence on the suppliant by virtuousness of Section 146 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006 to turn out that the constituted non conformity affected the consequence of the election when there is no such as proviso in the said section.
Buhari averred that the express proviso of subdivision 146 is for the appropriate political party to demo that the non conformity did not substantially impact the consequence of the election and not that the non conformity affected the consequence of the election.
However, in an further twenty grounds of appeal, Buhari contended that The Learned Justices of the Court of Entreaty erred in law when they held thus "the powerfulnesses of the President of the Court of Entreaty under subdivision 284 and 285 of the Fundamental Law is not limited to the pattern and process of the Court of Entreaty in its appellant jurisdiction, it makes widen to the powerfulness to publish pattern ways not lone in the appellant legal power of the Court of Appeal, but also in its original legal power under S.239 of the Constitution."
He insisted that "the Court of Entreaty Rules to which subdivision 248 of the Fundamental Law uses is not applicable to the first case trial of the Presidential Election Request before the Court of Appeal; the Court of Entreaty is the 'tribunal' for the determination of Presidential Election petition; the only applicable Rule of Court for the first case trial of the Presidential Election Request is the Federal Soldier High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules as provided by paragraph 50 of the First Agenda to the Electoral Act, 2006".
He also contended that "There is no proviso for the passage of pattern way in either subdivision 284 or 285 of the Constitution". He also maintained that the Learned Justices erred in Law when they held that the deposits of witnessers filed by the suppliant were incompetent before the Court pointing out that the deposits in inquiry were adopted through a opinion by the Court in malice of expostulation by the petitioner's Advocate to the procedure.; the Court by Order denied the suppliant the chance to name the testifiers to follow their deposits on curse against the volition of the advocate tothe petitioner; the Order adopting the deposits astestimonies before the Court did not include a rightof computer address on the issue thereafter as declared in thejudgment;the Court lacked the competency to rendernugatory the consequence of its ain Order within the sameproceeding; there is a difference in law between admissionof grounds and acceptance of deposits as a testimonybefore the Court;the deposits were not Exhibits before theCourt". According to him, the Learned Justices erred in law when they placedprobative value on the deposits filed by the 1stand 2nd respondents jointly, and 4th and 5threspondents jointly.
"The deposits filed by the 1st and 2ndrespondents in CA/A/EP/2/07 referred to political parties inanother request CA/A/EP/3/07; the deposits filed by the 4th and 5th respondents were not sworn by any identified humanperson; the deposits filed by the 4th and 5threspondents were overtly inconsistent with thePractice Direction which did not authorise suchdepositions by a respondent; the deposits infringed the commissariat of the Evidence Act; the points were raised by the suppliant in his counsel's computer address but ignored by the Court below in its judgment.Other evidence of entreaty include that "the Learned Justices of the Court of Entreaty erred inLaw when they held:"It is clear from the above declared paragraphs that thepetitioners have got got not fully put out facts on whichtheir lawsuit is supposedly based particularly paragraphs9B, 9B(i)(b), 9B(iii), 9B(iii)(g), and 9B(iii)(h)."The Learned Justices of the Court of Entreaty erred inlaw when they held that the suppliant had not provedthe allegations of non-compliance with subdivisions 20,21, 29, 64, and 75 of the Electoral Act"."The Learned Justices of the Court of Entreaty erred inlaw when in the Pb judgement to which they allconcurred it was held:"I have looked at the Exhibits before me, particularlyForms EC25, EC40C, and EC40E which are tendered intheir hundreds. Form EC25 is Electoral materialreceipt, Form EC40C is ballot paper business relationship andverification statement, Form EC40E is the tenderedballot statement".
"The Learned Justices of the Court of Entreaty erred inLaw when after initiating an understanding to dispensewith unwritten evidence, and making an Order to thateffect, their Lordships made determinations against thepetitioner for not calling unwritten grounds of his agentsin cogent grounds of non compliances, and their consequence on theresult of the election"The Learned Justices erred in Law when they failed toinvalidate the two Form EC8D(A)s Exhibits EP2/B2 andEP2/B3".That the Learned Justices erred in law when they heldthus: " Learned advocate for the suppliant in an effort toestablish non show of electors register and nonintegration of same with supplementary votersregister, in his computer computer address drew a chart, No. One at page25 of his written address to page 29 screening irregularentries in the electors registers, from the followingfive States of Nasarawa, Kwara, Rivers, International Maritime Organization andTaraba".Buhari held that Judgment is against the weight of grounds proffered by the petitioner. He therefore sought the followers alleviations from the Supreme Court."That the Entreaty be allowed and the judgement of theCourt of Entreaty dismissing the request put aside"."That the election of the 4th respondent be set asideon land of non-qualification"."That the election purportedly conducted by the 1stand 2nd Respondents on 21st April 2007 for thePresidency of Federal Republic Of Nigeria be declared invalid and setaside". "That the further alleviations sought by thepetitioner in his request be granted"