Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and his party have asked the Supreme Court to upturn the ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, PEPT.
The 5-man panel of the tribunal had on September 11 dismissed Atiku’s petition in its entirety.
But the petitioners in an appeal filed at the Apex Court on Monday listed five reasons while the tribunal was wrong.
According to the appeal, the tribunal faltered to hold that the 2nd respondent’s exhibits R1 to R26, P85, and P86 were properly admitted in evidence”.
“My firm view is that Section 76 of the Electoral Act is clearly inapplicable to the issues under consideration,” the suit read.
“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 the election.
“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 have 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 the 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 was proved or established as required by law.”