Human
rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has predicted that Atiku Abubakar, the
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate in the February 23
election, will face “insurmountable legal obstacles” at the Presidential
Election Petition’s Tribunal.
Falana
in a statement on Tuesday, however, warned that Atiku should not be blackmailed
not to take the legal step, adding that the calls prevailing on him not to
approach the tribunal were uncalled for.
He
recalled that President Muhammadu Buhari who was declared the winner of the
February 23 election, had challenged his losses in court in the successive
presidential elections of 2003, 2007 and 2011.
Falana,
however, stated that the failure of successive administrations to reform the
electoral process, had created insurmountable legal obstacles for election
petitioners.
“The
campaign that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar should not seek redress is totally uncalled
for.
“Aggrieved
by the general elections of 2003, 2007 and 2011 conducted by INEC, Candidate
Muhammadu Buhari sought redress in court.
“The
chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomole and other APC leaders have had cause to
claim their mandate through the court.
“Even
some APC members who lost the just-concluded National Assembly elections have
announced plans to challenge the return of their opponents by INEC.
“Therefore,
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar should not be blackmailed or begged by any group of
people not to challenge the presidential election held in the country on
February 23, 2019.
“Regrettably,
however, the failure of the PDP and APC-led Federal Government to reform the
electoral process has created insurmountable legal obstacles for election
petitioners,” he said.
Falana
added that “the frustration of election petitioners has been compounded by
several judicial authorities”, with some decisions holding that “an election
cannot be questioned on grounds of corrupt practices.
“For
instance, a petitioner is required to prove that there is substantial
non-compliance and that the non-compliance has substantially affected the
results of the election.
“In
Yussuf v Obasanjo, it was held that an election cannot be questioned on grounds
of corrupt practices.
“In
Falae v Obasanjo it was held that it has to be proved that financial inducement
was authorised by the winner of an election.
“In
Buhari v Obasanjo it was held that the onus of proving electoral malpractice
rests on the petitioner.
“Several
fraudulent elections have been upheld under the doctrine of substantial
compliance.
“In
several cases, winners of fraudulent elections that were annulled were allowed
to take part in rerun elections ordered by the courts.”
