How INEC awarded votes to Yar’Adua, others - Atiku ignorant of law

Lanre Adewole, Abuja - 04.02.2008

THE Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has been accused of awarding votes to candidates in the April 21, 2007 presidential election.

Candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party in the election, General Muhammadu Buhari, levelled the allegation in his final address to the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja on why the election should be cancelled.

The address was prepared on Buhari’s behalf by his lead counsel, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN). Buhari, who filed a petition at the tribunal seeking to nullify the presidential election, stated in his final address that “In conclusion, it is submitted that there was no election in the 29 states covered by evidence and this address, and that the allegation that the results in the EC8D(A) and EC8E were arbitrarily assigned without any election at the base has been conclusively established even beyond reasonable doubt although the burden is only on the balance of probability.

“We have proved bias in the corporate 1st respondent {INEC}acting through its staff and agents, by showing that wherever anything was done wrong, it was done in favour of 5th and 6th respondents.

“We have proved that the voters’ register was so irregular that even photos of children featured in many, and that some were in foolscap sheets; we have shown through different documents that results were being written on different days including pre-election and also, most curiously, after the result had been announced.

“It is submitted that where the so-called final result contains figures that were said to have arisen before the date of the election and even after the so-called final result had been announced, then it would take minimal objectivity to come to a conclusion that the final result was arbitrarily put together.

“This honourable court is urged to hold that the conditions under Section 146 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006, have been held and having so held, nullify the presidential election purportedly conducted by INEC and its chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu,’’ the petitioner submitted.

Also, President Umaru Yar’Adua on Sunday said the presidential candidate of the Action Congress, Atiku Abubakar’s confidence that he could void his election through interrogatories was borne out of his (Atiku’s) ignorance of the position of law.

He also absolved the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Maurice Iwu, of allegation of perjury while answering the interrogatories as posed to him by Atiku.

In a reply on point of law prepared by Yar’Adua’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), the president said Atiku was either confused or acting under a misapprehension of the law. Yar’Adua stated that the issue of allegation that Professor Iwu committed perjury did not arise. According to him, “With the greatest respect to the petitioners’ counsel, their submissions on the interrogatories is a complete departure from the simple question put in their question number one, to wit, whether a fresh contract for printing of ballot papers for the presidential election was awarded less than five days to the election, a question which was followed by question number two as to whether the said contract was awarded to a company in South Africa.
“None of the questions relates to where ballot papers were printed.

“There is a world of difference between mere award of contracts and where ballot papers were printed. “Petitioners’ counsel have now shifted ground from the simple questions they asked relating to award of contract to printing of ballot papers in their address. “With respect again, they have created a confusing situation and unfairly shifted blame to the 5th Respondent who has merely answered the simple questions put to him.

“From the foregoing, it is submitted that the petitioners came to a very faulty conclusion by labelling 5th Respondent a liar who should be committed for perjury, simply because his answers to their interrogatories are not satisfactory to them.

“Petitioners have not been able to counter or fault the submission that the evidence extracted from the interrogatories form part of their case. “By extension, 5th Respondent, for the purpose of the interrogatories, is their witness who has given evidence on oath.”