PDP, Atiku Challenge Tribunal Ruling At Supreme Court

The PDP and Atiku/Obi have filed an appeal at the
Supreme Court of Nigeria on the outcome of the
Presidential Election Petition Tribunal Judgment of
September 11, 2019.

The appeal was filed on Monday, September 23,
2019 with 66 Grounds of appeal.

Ground 1 – 10: of appeal below

GROUND 1: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they relied on “overall interest of justice”
to hold that the 2nd Respondent’s Exhibits R1 to
R26, P85 and P86 were properly admitted in
evidence.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. Exhibits R1 to R26, P85 and P86 were not
pleaded by the 2nd Respondent.
2. Exhibits R1 to R26, P85 and P86 were not
frontloaded.
3. No leave of court was sought pursuant to
paragraph 41 (8) of the 1st Schedule to the
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to receive Exhibits
R1 to R26, P85 and P86 in evidence.
4. Exhibits P85 and P86 were tendered through
PW40 who is not the maker and there is no nexus
between him and the documents.
5. Exhibits R1 to R26, P85 and P86 were held to
have been properly admitted in evidence based on
a blanket statement.
GROUND 2: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they held thus:
“My firm view is that Section 76 of the Electoral Act
is clearly inapplicable to the issues under
consideration. The form referred to are the form to
be used in the conduct of the election as FORM
CF001 had been taken care of in Section 31 of the
Electoral Act and the said FORM CF001 is tied to
the steps laid down in the said Section 31 of the
Electoral Act.
More importantly the law is firmly settled that a
candidate is not required by the Constitution or the
Electoral Act to attach his certificates to FORM
CF001 before the candidate can be considered or
adjudged to have the requisite educational
qualifications to contest election.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. The Court below gave restrictive interpretation to
Section 76 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
in order to exclude Form CF001 from its provisions.
2. The conduct of election by the 1st Respondent
starts with the screening of candidates.
3. No candidate can be screened unless he
completes Form CF001 (Exhibit P1).
4. In Form CF001, under the column for “Schools
Attended/Educational Qualification with dates”, there
is the clear provision: “ATTACH EVIDENCE OF ALL
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS”.
5. Certificates are evidence of educational
qualifications.
GROUND 3: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they held as follows:
“The reasonable inference or plausible meaning
attachable to the above provision of Electoral Act
2010 as amended is that a Candidate can list
information concerning evidence of his
qualifications or other relevant information(s) about
himself. The demand or information required in
FORM CF001 cannot be more or higher than the
statutory requirements.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. Form CF001 is designed to take care of the
provision in section 31(2) of the Electoral Act (as
amended) regarding the “list or information” a
candidate is expected to submit and verify by an
Affidavit.
2. The prescription in Form CF001 for a candidate
to attach evidence of all educational qualifications
is part of statutory requirements.
3. Form CF001 is made pursuant to statutory
provisions.
GROUND 4: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they held thus:
“There was/is no pleadings in the Petition to the
effect that 2nd Respondents failure to attach his
certificates to Form CF001 amounts to lack of
educational qualification to contest the election. In
other words the issue of failure to attach certificates
which has been flogged throughout the length and
breadth of the Petitioners Address (es) in Reply to
1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents final written address
is not the case of the Petitioner in the pleadings.
No issue was joined on non production of
certificates or failure to attach them as an infraction
of section 131, 137 and 138 of the Constitution of
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended…
All submission about failure to produce certificates
or attach same to CF001 is hereby discountenanced
. Even if it can be said that the submissions made
are in tandem with the Petitioners Pleadings on
issues 1 and 2 the fact remains that none of the
facts pleaded were proved or established as
required by law.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. Clearly, the Appellants pleaded and proved the
allegation that the 2nd Respondent gave false
information of a fundamental nature to the 1st
Respondent in aid of his qualification.
2. The issue raised above was done suo motu by
the court below without affording the Appellants a
hearing on it.
3. The Court below set out in full, the pleadings in
the Petition under the heading: Grounds 4 and 5:
“Non-Qualification and giving of false Information”,
which paragraphs 388 – 405 of the Petition cover.
4. Paragraph 396 thereof is predicated on the 2nd
Respondent’s claim that all documents relating to
his academic qualification “are currently” with the
Secretary to the Military Board.
5. The Appellants also pleaded thereof that the
Nigerian Military denied that it held or was in
possession of the 2nd Respondent’s certificates.
6. Paragraph 399 thereof pleads that the Appellants
will contend that the 2nd Respondent was not
qualified to contest the said election.
7. The Appellants are not enjoined to plead the law
but material facts.
8. The failure of the 2nd Respondent to produce his
Certificates or attach same to Form CF001 in the
face of unequivocal denial by the Army that his
Certificates were not with them went to the root of
the allegation against the 2nd Respondent that he
gave false information of a fundamental nature to
the 1st Respondent in aid of his qualification.
9. The Appellants pleaded and proved the allegation
that the 2nd Respondent gave false information of a
fundamental nature to the 1st Respondent in aid of
his qualification.
10. The finding above is perverse.
GROUND 5: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they failed to consider and apply the
recent case of A.A MODIBBO v MUSTAPHA USMAN
AND ORS, an unreported decision of the Supreme
Court in Appeal No SC/790/2019 delivered on 30th
day of July, 2019, cited and relied upon by the
Appellants wherein the principles enunciated therein
have direct bearing on the Petition.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. In the above judgment, the Apex Court in clear
and unequivocal terms stated the meaning and
standard of proof of “false information”.
2. By the above decision, the Petitioners were only
required to prove that any of the information in
Exhibit P1 was contrary to truth or fact that is to
say untrue simpliciter.
3. In reviewing the Appellants’ case, the court below
referred to the said judgment of the Supreme Court
five times but failed to consider and apply same.
4. The judgment considered “false information” in
relation to the contents of Form CF001 verified on
Oath and the definition of “false”.
5. By the principle of stare decisis, the court below
was under an obligation to consider and follow the
principle of law enunciated therein relevant to the
issue of the non-qualification of the 2nd
Respondent canvassed by the Appellants.
6. The lower Court failed to do so and no reason
was given.
GROUND 6: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they held as follows:
“There is no evidence before the Court to disclaim
or prove that the 2nd Respondent lied that he went
to Primary School, Secondary School and that he
joined the Army in 1962 with RW1 and many other
persons in the 2nd Respondent’s C.V. attached to
Exhibit P1 tendered by the Petitioners. Page 1
thereof shows conclusively that he attended Primary
School and that he attended Katsina Provincial
Secondary School (no Government College) Katsina
in 1956 – 1961 and went to Nigerian Military
Training from 1961 – 1963. The evidence of RW1
and RW2 bear testimony to the aforesaid facts. The
said RW1 and RW2 establish beyond doubt that
2nd Respondent had educational qualifications he
filled in FORM CF001 on 8/10/2018.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. The educational qualifications the 2nd
Respondent claimed in Exhibit P1 are “Primary
School Certificate”, “WASC” and “Officer Cadet”.
2. The 2nd Respondent did not predicate his
educational qualifications on any other certificate or
ground.
3. The 2nd Respondent appreciated that he was
under an obligation to attach evidence of the
certificates/qualifications he claimed in Form
CF001.
4. The 2nd Respondent did not attach any of them
and claimed that they “are currently” with the
Secretary to the Military Board in an affidavit he
deposed to on 24th November, 2014.
5. The Appellants led evidence that the military
denied being in possession of the certificates.
6. The information on the issue contained in Exhibit
P1 is false and it is of a fundamental nature in aid
of his qualification.
7. RW1 and RW2 did not establish in any manner
whatsoever that the 2nd Respondent had the
educational qualifications he claimed in Form
CF001.
8. Proof of educational qualification is not
established by so claiming in an Affidavit.
9. The Appellants led sufficient evidence before the
lower Court to prove that the 2nd Respondent lied
concerning the Schools he purported to have
attended and Certificates obtained.
10. Exhibit P1 cannot by any stretch of imagination
be conclusive proof that the 2nd Respondent
attended Primary School and Katsina Provincial
Secondary School (now Government College),
Katsina from 1956 to 1961 and that he went to
Nigerian Military Training School from 1961 to
1963.
11. RW1 and RW2 did not in any way establish
beyond doubt, as held by the lower Court, that 2nd
Respondent had educational qualifications he filled
in Form CF001 on 8/10/2018.
12. If anything, the evidence of RW1 and RW2
concerning educational qualifications of the 2nd
Respondent as filled in Form CF001 on 8/10/2018
is merely hearsay.
13. The 2nd Respondent did not attach to Form
CF001, filled on 8/10/2018, the Certificates he
claimed to have attained neither did he tender any
Certificate before the lower Court as conclusive
proof of his educational qualifications.
GROUND 7: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they held as follows:
“The Petitioners claimed that they have proved the
false Affidavit and in addition they pleaded and
tendered public statements made by the Secretary
to the Army Board both in the electronic and print
Media and relied on Exhibit P80 and P24 to show
that the Army emphatically denied the claim and as
such onus shifts on the 2nd Respondent to
disprove it.
The fact remains that the Petitioners failed to call
the then Director of Army Public Relations, Brigadier
General Olajide Laleye who they pleaded in
paragraph 396 of the Petition as having debunked
the assertion of 2nd Respondent contained in
Affidavit sworn to on 24/11/2014. The said
paragraph 396 constitutes the fountain and pivot of
the Petitioners’ allegation of and they have a
bounden duty to show that the Affidavit contained
false information of a fundamental nature in aid of
his qualification for election.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. The 2nd Respondent claimed that his certificates
“are currently” with the Secretary to the Military
Board who is under the authority and command of
the 2nd Respondent as the Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces.
2. In the Affidavit verifying the information contained
in Exhibit P1, the 2nd Respondent stated that “they
are true and correct”.
3. Apart from PW62 who gave evidence on the
qualification of the 2nd Respondent, the 2nd
Respondent’s witnesses namely RW1, RW2, RW3
and RW4 were cross examined on the 2nd
Respondent’s claimed qualifications and Exhibit P1
and elicited evidence favourable to the case of the
Appellants.
4. The 2nd Respondent particularly called RW1 in
aid of his qualification but he repudiated the claim
of the 2nd Respondent that his certificates were
with the Secretary to the Military Board.
5. The 2nd Respondent did not at any time deny or
challenge the contents of Exhibit P1.
6. In further aid of his qualification, the 2nd
Respondent tendered Exhibit R23 which contained
Brigadier Olajide Laleye’s denial that the Military has
the 2nd Respondent’s certificates in its possession.
GROUND 8: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred
gravely in law when they held in that:
“The pleadings reproduced above are laced and
laden with serious criminal allegations or criminal
wrongdoing against the 2nd Respondent.
The settled position of the law is that the party
making such allegations must lead or proffer
credible evidence in order to sustain the allegations
as a prelude to the grant of the relief sought
thereupon. The Petitioners have the task and
obligation to prove the allegations beyond
reasonable doubt.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. By the foregoing passage, the lower Court
referred to paragraphs 388 to 405 of the Petition.
2. The allegations in paragraphs 388 to 405 of the
petition are not laced or laden with criminal
allegations as wrongly held by the lower Court.
3. The allegations in paragraphs 388 to 405 of the
Petition are ordinarily subject to proof on balance of
probabilities.
4. By demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt,
the lower Court imposed much higher burden of
proof on the Appellants than what the law required.
5. The lower Court’s demand of proof beyond
reasonable doubt on allegations of mere civil
wrongs is perverse in the extreme.
GROUND 9: ERROR IN LAW
The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they held as follows:
“The Petitioners argued strenuously that the failure
of the 2nd Respondent to attach the certificates
listed in the FORM CF001 to the said FORM means
that 2nd Respondent does not possess the
certificates he claimed in part C of FORM CF001
about schools attended/Educational Qualifications
with dates and that evidence of all educational
qualifications should be attached.
The 2nd Respondent stated in the said column that
he attended Primary School and has Primary School
Certificate in 1952. That he has Secondary
education and WASC in 1961 and for his Higher
School he stated “OFFICER CADET” 1963.
There is no evidence before the Court to disclaim or
prove that the 2nd Respondent lied that he went to
Primary School, Secondary School and that he
joined the Army in 1962 with RW1 and many other
persons in the 2nd Respondent’s C.V. attached to
Exh. P1 tendered by the Petitioners. Page 1 thereof
shows conclusively that he attended Primary School
and that he attended Katsina Provincial Secondary
School (now Government College) Katsina in
1956-1961 and went to Nigerian Military Training
from 1961-1963. The evidence of RW1 and RW2
bear testimony to the aforesaid facts.
The said RW1 and RW2 establish beyond doubt
that 2nd Respondent had educational qualifications
he filled in FORM CF001 on 8/10/2018.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. Form CF001 mandatorily requires that the 2nd
Respondent was to attach his qualifying certificates,
which requirement was not fulfilled by the 2nd
Respondent.
2. Evidence was led by the Appellants to show that
the 2nd Respondent does not posses the
Certificates he listed in Form CF001.
3. The Appellants having established that the 2nd
Respondent does not have the certificates to attach
to his to Form CF001, the burden of proof shifted
to the 2nd Respondent to prove, in accordance with
the mandatory requirement of Form CF001, the
schools he attended and attach the certificates
obtained, to authenticate that claim, which burden
the 2nd Respondent failed to discharge.
4. The evidence of RW1 and RW2 and the contents
of the 2nd Respondent’s CV are not substitutes for
the documentary evidence of the qualifying
certificates.
5. The 2nd Respondent, who had claimed on oath
that he possesses the Certificates for Primary
School, Secondary School and “Officer Cadet” in
part C of Form CF001 was shown not to have those
Certificates, and the 2nd Respondent was not able
to produce the said Certificates.
6. The lower Court was wrong to equate the 2nd
Respondent’s attendance of Primary School,
Secondary School, and Officer Cadet Course, for the
representation of the 2nd Respondent that he
possesses these Certificates.
7. The lower Court was wrong to infer that the 2nd
Respondent handed over his certificates to the
Secretary Military Board at any time whatsoever.
8. There was oral evidence from RW1 to the effect
that the representation of 2nd Respondent of having
submitted his “Certificates” to military authorities
was false.
9. There was evidence from PW1 and PW2 and
from Exhibits P80 and P24 on the denials of the
Military Authorities that they are in possession of
2nd Respondent’s “Certificates” as deposed to on
Oath by 2nd Respondent.
GROUND 10: ERROR IN LAW
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they held, as follows:
“The Petitioners Learned Counsel had argued that
the evidence led to prove that 2nd Respondent
attended secondary school or a primary school or
that he attended some courses, is irrelevant
because he did not rely on any of those
qualification in Exhibit P1. With profound respect to
the Learned Senior Counsel his position is faulty
because the said FORM CF001 specifically asked
2nd Respondent the schools he attended with
qualifications attained or obtained in order to
determine whether the 2nd Respondent has been
educated up to at least the School Certificate level
or its equivalent which is part of the qualifications
stipulated in Section 131 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. The 2nd Respondent, from the contents of
Exhibit P1, did not rely on the alternative
qualifications canvassed by the Respondents in the
lower Courts.
2. Form CF001 not only asked the 2nd Respondent
to state the schools he attended, but also
mandatorily required him to attach the certificates
obtained by him from the said schools.
3. The qualification relied upon by the 2nd
Respondent under Section 131(d) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
(as amended) is that he obtained a First School
Leaving Certificate, WASC and Officer Cadet.