Atiku Abubakar, a former vice president of Nigeria and a candidate for president of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has stated before the Presidential Election Petitions Court that if the court decides Bola Tinubu was improperly declared president and subsequently removes him from office, heavens won’t end.
This was stated by Atiku in his closing statement supporting his appeal opposing the announcement of Tinubu as the victor of the February 25 presidential election.
According to Atuku, the tribunal should not deviate from its duty because a presidential election had never been declared invalid in Nigeria.
Atiku argued that if the tribunal reached such a verdict, nothing like that would happen, refuting Tinubu’s claim that annulling the February 25 presidential election due to an interpretation of the 25% of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) could cause chaos in the nation.
Read also: Abuja is short 25%. Tinubu and Atiku cannot run for president, according to PDP witness.
He said, “At this stage, it is pertinent to observe from the outset that the Second Respondent’s Final Written Address, with respect, reflects a complete misconception and unfortunate misunderstanding of the case of the Petitioners.”
Lead counsel to Atiku and PDP, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, said in the final address, “A subtle threat of apocalyptic catastrophe of national chaos and anarchy if a judgement is not given in a particular manner cannot deter a court of law from doing justice”.
Uche urged the panel, “A fortiori, this Honourable Court will be urged to dispense with the archaic and analogue methods of proof, and embrace the progress made by technology in this new paradigm shift, improving and pushing the traditional boundaries of burden of proof in the quest to attain substantial justice.”
The senior lawyer pointed out that given the role of technology in the conduct of the presidential election, “there was a departure from the need to call physical witnesses from polling units.”
He added that the intendment of the present technological improvements was to “discontinue with the past impossibility to call witnesses from over half or more of the 176,846 polling units nationwide, being the import of section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 and paragraph 46(4) of the 1st Schedule thereto.”
Atiku further argued that the Second respondent’s final written address was invalid since it was submitted in blatant violation of and non-compliance with the statutory conditions of Paragraphs 5(c) and (d) of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Directions, 2023.
“We urge your Lordships to discountenance as well as strike out the said Final Written Address for gross non-compliance,” Uche urged the tribunal.
Atiku concluded his final address by calling on the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani to uphold the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) at a time like this.
He stated, “As was stated by the Supreme Court, per Oguntade JSC in GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE V OJIBARA (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 348) 864 at 877 para D:- I have said this much in the hope that all players in the field of politics will imbibe the culture of paying due reverence and regard to the provisions of the constitution.
“This has become necessary because in these times there is unrestrained inclination to disregard the constitution and treat its terms with irreverence and disrespect. The constitution is the very foundation and structure upon which the existence of all organs of governance is hinged. It must be held inviolable.
“We, therefore, submit with all sense of responsibility that this nation and its judiciary stand at the threshold of history. We submit that the fact that a presidential election has never been nullified by the Courts in Nigeria before now, is not a good reason not to do so now, as it is just to nullify the return of the Second Respondent and grant appropriate orders. As was eloquently put by the celebrated Law Lord, Denning MR in the case of PACKER vs. PACKER (1954) AC P.15 @ 22:-
“What is the argument on the other side? Only this that no case has been found in which it had been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on and that will be bad for both.
“May our law and our country not stand still, while the rest of the world goes on. As has been said, let justice be done, the heavens will not fall.”
“The court must do justice, rather ‘let the heavens fall’ but as courageously stated by the Supreme Court per Oguntade JSC, in the epic case of AMAECHI vs. INEC & ORS (2008) LPELR-446(SC) (Pp. 67-68 paras. D): ‘I must do justice even if the heavens fall.’ The truth, of course, is that when justice has been done, the heavens stay in place.”
In order to avoid stifling the ideals of transparency and honesty, which are the cornerstones of constitutional democracy, Uche asked PREPEC to adopt a proactive approach in its interpretation of the new legislation and use of the new technologies.
He emphasized that the Electoral Act 2022 was meant by the parliament to establish a new system for handling elections and resolving disputes in response to the need for an end to the recurring defective election cycles, each cycle being worse than the one before it.
