Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, has added his voice to the ongoing debate over whether a presidential candidate must receive 25% of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to be declared President-elect under the 1999 Constitution. This position, however, is not backed by the Supreme Court case he cited according to QUEST TIMES’ investigations.
Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended) states that a presidential candidate must not only have more votes, but also have at least one-quarter (25%) of all votes cast across the Federation and FCT.
In justifying his position, Aondoakaa cited a Supreme Court decision, MUHAMMADU BUHARI V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND 4 OTHERS (2008), in which he stated that the apex court had rested the matter.
However, QUEST TIMES obtained a copy of the judgment, which concerns an electoral dispute between All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) candidate [as he was then known] Muhammadu Buhari and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Musa Yar’Adua over the conduct of the 2007 presidential election.
The issues of contention before their Lordships: Justices Idris Legbo Kutigi, (the Chief Justice of Nigeria); Aloysius Iyorgyer Katsina-Alu; Niki Tobi; Dahiru Musdapher; George Adesola Oguntade; Aloma Mariam Mukhtar; Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, were:
i.               Whether Umaru Musa Yar’adua (fourth respondent) was qualified to contest the presidential election of 21 April 2007.
ii.             Whether the election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006, and on whom rested the burden of proving non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2006.
iii.           Whether the ballot papers used in the election complied with the requirements of the Electoral Act.
iv.            Whether any non-compliance with the Electoral Act substantially affected the outcome of the election.
v.              Whether the Constitution, especially sections 248 and 285, gave the President of the Court of Appeal the power to issue Practice Directions for the proceedings of the court in terms of its original jurisdiction under section 239 of the Constitution.
vi.            Whether inadmissible evidence by affidavit could be received by the court on the ground that the parties did not object to such evidence.
vii.          Whether the election was invalid on account of corrupt practices.
viii.        Whether the report of the Commission of Inquiry, set up by the Governor of Abia State, found the fourth and fifth respondents guilty of embezzlement or fraud.
ix.            Whether the findings of the Commission of Inquiry set up by the Governor of Abia State into the conduct of the fourth and fifth respondents had any probative value.
According to the decision, the petitioners’ submissions focused on the issue of compliance with the Electoral Act (2006) in the conduct of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in four states, including Abuja.
Aondoakaa, who was AGF under President Yar’Adua, the main beneficiary of the electoral dispute in question, also stated that a candidate for the position of President in Nigeria must receive a significant number of votes in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city, before being declared the winner of an election.
VERDICT: While QUEST TIMES does not wish to enter into a debate about the correctness or incorrectness of anyone’s interpretation of the contentious provision of the 1999 Constitution, based on the evidence, ex-AGF Aondoakaa was only interpreting Section 146 of the Electoral Act (2006), NOT the contentious Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). As a result, ex-AGF’s assertion is FALSE!