The Peoples Democratic Party and its presidential candidate in the February 23 election, Atiku Abubakar, have alleged that they won President Muhammadu Buhari and his All Progressives Congress (APC) in the election.
In the petition before the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunalin Abuja, which they filed on Monday, they claimed, contrary to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declaration of Buhari as the winner, Atiku won the election with more one million votes.
They are relying on 50 sets of documents to prove their case at the tribunal.
Atiku and the PDP had filed a petition on Monday challenging the declaration of President Buhari as the winner of the Feb. 23 presidential election.
They filed the petition alleging massive riggings, malpractices and non compliance substantially with the electoral laws.
Atiku and the PDP prayed the tribunal to declare them as winner of the presidential election.
In the alternative, the petitioners prayed the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) to nullify the poll and ordered for a fresh election that will be conducted in lines with provisions of the electoral laws.
INEC, Buhari and the APC as the first, second and third respondents in the petition.
INEC had on February 27, 2019 declared that Buhari won the election with 15,191,847 votes to defeat Atiku, whom it said polled 11,262,978 votes.
But the petitioners stated that results displayed from the data in INEC’s server, from “state to state computation” showed that Atiku polled a total of 18,356,732 votes to defeat Buhari whom they alleged scored 16,741,430 votes.
They said the results were the total votes scored by the candidates in 35 states and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, as there was “no report on sever” about the results from Rivers State as of February 25, 2019.
By this, Atiku claims to have defeated Buhari with 1,615,302 votes.
Arguing their case on five grounds, the petitioners said Buhari was not qualified to run for the office of the President on the grounds that he did not possess the constitutional minimum qualification of a school certificate.
“The 2nd respondent (Buhari) was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
“The election of the 2nd respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices.
“The election of the 2nd Respondent is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
“The 2nd respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election.
“The 2nd respondent submitted to the 1st Respondent an affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election.”
“The petitioners state that by Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), every political party shall not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election submit to the Commission in the prescribed form the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections.
“Further, by Section 31(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the list or information submitted by each candidate shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the candidate at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or Federal Capital Territory indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office.
“The 2nd respondent filled and submitted Form CF001 to the 1st Respondent, which was declared before the Commissioner for Oaths at the Registry of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on the 8th day of October, 2018. The said Form CF001 is accompanied by an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT indicating that the 1st Respondent received same.
“The petitioners aver that the said Form CF001 filled by the 2nd Respondent and submitted to the 1st Respondent for the Office of President was also accompanied by the Curriculum Vitae of the 2nd Respondent as well as GENERAL FORM OF AFFIDAVIT duly sworn to by the 2nd respondent at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, along with copies of his Membership Card of the 3rd Respondent and Voter Card.
“The information submitted to the 1st respondent (INEC) by the 2nd respondent (Buhari) is false and of a fundamental nature in aid of his education qualification, notwithstanding that he had declared in the said sworn affidavit as follows: ‘I hereby declare that all the answers, facts and particulars I have given in this Form, are true and correct and I have to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all the requirements for qualifications for the office I am seeking to be elected’.”
They stated that the educational institutions Buhari “claimed to have attended and the certificates presented by him namely, Elementary School Daura and Mai Aduaa between 1948 and 1952, Middle School Katsina between 1953 and 1956 and Katsina Provincial College (now Government College, Katsina) between 1956 to 1961 and mentioned by the 2nd respondent in his curriculum vitae attached to Form CF 001, were not in existence as of those mentioned dates.”
Atiku and the PDP have assembled 21 Senior Advocates of Nigeria and 18 other lawyers, led by Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), to argue their case.