CPC PETITIONED PDP ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

On Thursday, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), placed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the ruling of the presidential election petition tribunal, which dismissed its objection to the petition filed by the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) against the election of President Goodluck Jonathan.
The appellant, which fielded Jonathan as its president candidate, was asking the apex court to set aside the ruling of the Justice Ayo Salami-led panel on July 14, which refused to dismiss the CPC’s petition as it demanded.
The appellant wanted the apex court to hold that the lower court was wrong to have ruled that the petition, which was filed on a Sunday, was competent and proper in law.
It was also requesting that the second, sixth to 42nd respondents (Professor Attahiru Jega and state electoral commissioners) be struck off the petition.
The tribunal had refused the two requests.
In its ground of appeal, the appellant claimed that the lower court erred in law, “when they held that the petition, which was filed on a Sunday, was competent, adding that “Sunday is a Public Holiday and a dies non juridicus (a day on which a judicial act cannot be performed).”
It said “pursuant to Order 46 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, the Chief Judge is only permitted to give directions as to sitting on a Sunday and not filing on a Sunday.”
It added that “the provisions of Order 46 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 leave no room for the discretion of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court or the President of the Court of Appeal to direct the filing of a court process on a Sunday.”
It said paragraph 26 (2) of the first schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) did not, in any way, envisage the opening of the registry on a Sunday or a public holiday, adding that there was no known law which permitted filing of originating processes on a Sunday.
PDP argued further that “the Justice of the Lower Court erred in law and misplaced the concept of burden of proof. Going by Section 137(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof that there was a directive to file the petition on Sunday was/is on the petitioner.The burden of proof lies on he who would fail if no evidence was given on either side.”
Further buttressing its submission, the appellant said “by law, the courts are only permitted to sit on a Sunday or public holiday. The law does not permit courts to issue any directive allowing for the filing of an originating process on a Sunday or public holiday.”
Reliefs sought included an order of the court setting aside the ruling of the lower court, allowing the appeal and dismissing and/or striking out the petition for being incompetent.