‘Presentation of certificate to INEC not mandatory’ – TheNigerialawyer

•Buhari, APC reply Atiku’s, PDP’s claim President didn’t
tender certificate
•Respondents fault report of petitioners’ experts

PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari and the ruling All Progressives
Congress (APC) have faulted a core argument by Atiku Abubakar and
the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in their petition that the
President was not qualified to contest the last presidential
election.

The petitioners allegedly that President Buhari allegedly failed
to submit his secondary school certificate to the Independent
National electoral Commission (INEC).

The President and the APC argued that the Constitution does not
mandate any candidate seeking to contest an election for the office
of the President to attach his school certificate among documents
to be attached to the Form CF001 to be submitted to INEC.

“Section 131(d) of the Constitution provides that a person shall
be qualified for election to the office of President if ‘he has
been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its
equivalent’.

“From this clear constitutional provision, the question of
tendering a certificate, or the mountain, which the petitioners
have unfortunately made out of the molehill of a particular
certificate, does not arise.

“All that the Constitution requires and demands is education up
to school certificate level or its equivalent. While this section
of the Constitution is very clear and unambiguous, giving no room
for no conjecture, the Constitution goes further to define what
‘School Certificate or its equivalent’ means under Section 318,”
they said.

This formed part of the arguments by President Buhari and APC in
their final written addresses filed before the Presidential
Election Petition Court (PEPC) in reaction to similar final
addresses filed by Atiku and the PDP.

The President and his party, while arguing that the petitioners
failed to lead evidence in support of their claim that President
Buhari lacked the academic qualification to stand for election,
noted that they failed to call witnesses to ground the claim,
except only one, who even admitted that President Buhari was
qualified.

“The only witness who claimed to have had any intimacy with the
respondent amongst the petitioners’ witnesses is PW1 – Buba
Galadima – and his evidence, in his examination-in-chief and
cross-examination, amounts to evidence against interest in several
respects, including the fact that he was the Deputy Director
General, Director of Operations and National Campaign Secretary of
the respondent, in 2003, 2007 and 2011.

“His only alibi was that he never saw the respondent’s first
School Leaving Certificate. Assuming there was even no
cross-examination of this suspect witness, his evidence, rather man
assisting the petitioners, supports the respondent.

“Under cross-examination, he (Galadima) told the court that he
believed that the respondent was qualified to vie and contest for
the office of President at the four times he supported him in 2003,
2007, 2011 and 2015; that respondent was military Head of State
between 1983 and 1985; that respondent used to address the nation
in English language.

“What else does one need to establish the fact that the second
respondent (Buhari) was/is eminently qualified to contest the
election than the evidence of PW1, a former close aide of the
respondent, who has confessed falling out with him? It is an
admission against interest, which is the most potent weapon a party
can use against his adversary in litigation,” the respondents
said.

They cited cases, including the recent decision of the Court of
Appeal, Abuja, in the appeal brought against the decision of a High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) by the candidate of
the PDP in the last governorship election in Osun State, Senator
Ademola Adeleke, who was disqualified on ground of not possessing a
secondary school certificate.

“It is apt to draw the court’s attention to the fundamental fact
that the decision in the Adeleke v. Raheem (supra), was arrived at
while this Honourable Court was sitting on an appeal on a
pre-election matter, which challenged the educational qualification
of Adeleke, as well as the presentation of his Form CF001 to INEC,
pursuant to the provision of Section 31(4) and (5) of the Electoral
Act, which makes the subject a pre-election matter and not a
post-election matter, as the petitioners have done in this case,
for reasons best known to them.

“May we further draw the attention of the court to the fact that
in the Adeleke case, supra, the main reliefs sought against him
relate to his disqualification under and by virtue of Section
177(d) of the Constitution on the grounds that he gave false
information in his Form CF001 submitted to the INEC, claiming to
have met the constitutional requirements, whereas, in the detailed
result submitted by him, he only sat for English Language, where he
failed woefully, scoring F9, and failed to turn up for any of the
other subjects.

“The West African Examination Council (WAEC) certified that he
registered for the examination, sat for only one subject and failed
to attend the other subjects. Adeleke did not have any other
qualifying certificate or public service experience, be it in the
Armed Forces, teaching service, or anywhere at all.

“Unlike the respondent, who has shown his certificates qua
result at the Secondary School level, apart from being commissioned
into the Nigerian Army as 2nd Lieutenant in 1963, he attended the
Nigerian Military Training College (now the Nigerian Defence
Academy) for 12 months; the Officer ‘Cadet Training Course at Mons
Officer Cadet School in Aldershot, England; the Defence Services
Staff College, Wellington, India; the War College in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, United States of America, rising through the ranks to
attain the rank of Major General; former Military Head of State, a
man, who can communicate and who has been communicating effectively
in English language.

“With much respect, it is preposterous, and very unfortunate
that the petitioners would make the educational qualification of
the respondent an issue in this petition. On the flip side, it is
submitted that this shows that the petitioners have nothing to urge
on the court, thus, holding to any available straw,” the President
and APC said.

Culled from TheNation