MUHAMMADU BUHARI v INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION and 4 OTHERS (SC 51/2008) [2008] NGSC 9 (12 December 2008)

**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA** **ON FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008** **SC 51/2008** **BETWEEN** **MUHAMMADU BUHARI ........................................................................ APPELLANT** **AND** **INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION and 4 OTHERS........................... RESPONDENTS** **Before:** | Idris Legbo Kutigi, CJN; Aloysius Iyorgyer Katsina-Alu; Niki Tobi; Dahiru Musdapher; George Adesola Oguntade; Aloma Mariam Mukhtar; Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, JJSC ---|--- **ISSUES** _Whether Umaru Musa Yar’adua (fourth respondent) was qualified to contest the presidential election of 21 April 2007._ _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._ _Whether the ballot papers used in the election complied with the requirements of the Electoral Act._ _Whether any non-compliance with the Electoral Act substantially affected the outcome of the election._ _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._ _Whether inadmissible evidence by affidavit could be received by the court on the ground that the parties did not object to such evidence._ _Whether the election was invalid on account of corrupt practices._ _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._ _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._ **FACTS** _The appellant, General Muhammadu Buhari, sought an order in the Court of Appeal, Abuja, sitting as the Presidential Election Tribunal, that the presidential election of 21 April 2007 in which the fourth respondent, Umaru Musa Yar’adua, was elected president, be annulled on the grounds that the fourth respondent had not been qualified to contest the election on account of findings of fraud and embezzlement against him by a Commission of Inquiry set up by the Governor of Abia State, and that the election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2006 and corrupt practices._ _In compliance with the Practice Directions issued by the President of the Court of Appeal, (sitting as the Presidential Election Tribunal), the parties agreed that the depositions of witnesses be taken as adopted and that all documents tendered from the Bar be admitted in evidence._ _The Court of Appeal then dismissed the petition for want of evidence in support of the petitioner’s case and declared the fourth respondent the winner of the presidential election held on 21 April 2007 election. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the election failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006 and on account of corrupt practices._ **HELD** **Leading judgment by** Niki Tobi, JSC; with I.L. Kutigi Chief Justice, A.I. Katsina-Alu, D. Musdapher, JJSC concurring; W.S.N. Onnoghen, A.M. Mukhtar, G.A. Oguntade, JJSC dissenting 1. **Burden of proof** The burden of proof is not static. It fluctuates between the parties. The burden of first proving the existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court could be given if no evidence were produced on either side. In other words, the onus _probandi_ is on the party who would fail if no evidence is given in the case. Thereafter, the second burden goes to the adverse party. In the instant case, the burden of proving non-compliance with the Electoral Act lay with the appellant. Per Tobi, JSC at 171. 1. **Effect of conducting an election with invalid ballot papers** Section 45(2) of the Electoral Act 2006 had not been complied with. A valid election can not be conducted without valid ballot papers. Section 67 of the Electoral Act provided that ballot papers that did not comply with the requirements of the Act cannot be used in any election. Per Kutigi, CJN at 261. 1. **Further burden to prove substantiality of non-compliance with Electoral Act** The appellants then had to prove that such non-compliance with the Electoral Act substantially affected the result of the election. The respondents could then satisfy the court that non-compliance did not affect the outcome. Per Kutigi, CJN at 261. If a petitioner proves non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, he is only entitled to succeed if the court is satisfied that such non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. Per Kutigi, CJN at 261; Tobi, JSC at 171; Katsina-Alu, JSC at 265; Musdapher, JSC at 268. 1. **Non-compliance with the Act, insufficient to invalidate election** The appellant had failed to prove that non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act had substantially affected the result of the election. _Buhari v Obasanjo_(2005) 13 NWLR (Part 900) 487 approved and followed. Non-compliance with the Electoral Act, without more, was not sufficient to invalidate the election. Per Kutigi, CJN at 261; Per Tobi JSC at 171. 1. **Jurisdiction of the court on the propriety of serialisation of ballot papers** There was no basis for the lower court to have found that the propriety and correctness of the serialisation of the ballot papers had affected the outcome of the election. The Court lacked the competence or jurisdiction to make such a finding. Per Kutigi CJN at 261. 1. **Right of the president of Court of Appeal to make Practice Directions** The President of the Court of Appeal has the power to make Practice Directions under the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules for the purpose of regulating the practice and procedure of the Election Tribunals. Per Tobi, JSC at 171. 1. **Limits of Practice Directions** Although the president of the Court of Appeal had the power to make Practice Directions, such Practice Directions had to be within the confines of the law. The witness depositions in compliance with the Practice Directions were incompetent as they offended the provisions of section 90(_b_) and (_c_) of the Evidence Act. Per Tobi, JSC at 171. 1. **Constitutional provisions prevail over Practice Directions** If there is a conflict between the Constitution and Practice Directions, the former shall prevail. So too, if there is a conflict between an enabling statute and Practice Directions. Per Tobi, JSC at 171. 1. **Inadmissible evidence cannot be cured by consent** It did not matter that inadmissible evidence was admitted by consent of the parties. The affidavits did not meet the requirements of the law and were, therefore, inadmissible. Per Tobi, JSC 171; Musdapher, JSC at 268. 1. **Probative value of documents tendered under Practice Direction** The basic aim of tendering documents in bulk was to ensure the speedy hearing of election petitions . . . But that did not _ipso facto_ permit the court to attach probative value to documents that lacked such value . . . As the documents failed the test, the Court of Appeal was right in expunging them. It cannot be said that the Court of Appeal did not evaluate the evidence. Per Tobi, JSC at 171. 1. **Effect of court disregarding evidence** If the court does not make use of evidence of a witness, the evidence will be regarded as dead and moribund in the determination of the live issues. As the Court of Appeal did not place any probative value on the evidence, the evidence is irrelevant. Per Tobi, JSC at 171. 1. **Power of court to test findings of Commission of Inquiry** The Court had the jurisdiction under section 239(1) of the Constitution to inquire into the validity of the report of the Commission of Inquiry (Exhibit EP2/34) purporting to disqualify the fourth and fifth respondents on grounds of fraud and embezzlement. Such exhibit was invalid and irrelevant. The purported finding, therefore, did not disqualify the fourth respondent from contesting the election. Per Kutigi, CJN at 261; Per Tobi JSC at 171. 1. **Meaning of criminal conviction** An indictment involves an allegation or commission of a crime which necessitates the drafting of a charge. That is the essence of section 137(1)(_i_) of the Constitution. There is nothing in the findings of the Commission of Inquiry set up by the Governor of Abia State, to suggest that the fourth and fifth respondents were specifically found guilty of embezzlement or fraud, and so Exhibit EP2/34 did not articulate or vindicate section 137(1)(_i_) of the Constitution as it is clearly on its own. Per Tobi, JSC at 171. _Chief M.I. Ahamba_ , _SAN_ , with him _Chief Theo Nkire_ , _Chief Femi Falana_ , _Joy Nunieh_ , _Ibrahim Mujaheed_ , _A.T.U. Ibinola_ , _Valentine Ogar_ , _Uloma Emonyonu_ , _Sola Agbeyinka_ for appellant _Kanu G. Agabi_(_CON_), _SAN_ , _A.B. Mahmoud_ , _SAN_ , _Amaechi Nwaiwu_ , _SAN_ , _Bello Fadile_ , _Esq_., _O.O. Uzzi_ , _Esq_., _Wole Adebayo_ , _Esq_., _O.S. Obande_ , _Esq_., _Musa Elayo_ , _Esq_., _C.U. Ekomaru_ , _Esq_., _Okon Efut_ , _Esq_., _O.O. Obono-Obla_ , _Esq_., _Irene Ideva_ , (_Mrs_), _P.O. Ofikwu_ , _Esq_., _R.A. Umiom_ , _Esq_., _Ayo Akam_ , _Esq_., _Chuka Ugwu_ , _Esq_., _Patience Osagiede_(_Miss_), _Rita N. Ogar_(_Mrs_), _Darracott Osawe_ , _Esq_., _Adam Abdullahi_ , _Esq_., _Egang Agabi_ , _Esq_., _Ifunanya O_. _Obumselu_(_Mrs_), _John Ochogwu_ , _Esq_., _O_._M. Enebeli_(_Mrs_), _A. Ugar_(_Miss_), _A. Sadauki_ , _I.S. Utuk_ , _Umar Alhassan_ for the first and second respondents _Chief Wole Olanipekun_ , _SAN_ , with him _Yusuf Ali_ , _SAN_ , _Dr Alex A_. _Iziyon_ , _SAN_ , _D.D. Dodo_ , _SAN_ , _Farouk Asekome_ , for fourth and fifth respondents **The following cases were referred to in this judgment:** **Nigeria** _Abdul-Raham v Commissioner of Police_(1971) NMLR 87 _Abu v Alele-Williams_(1992) 5 NWLR (Part 241) 340 _Abubakar v Yar’Adua_(2008) 1 SC (Part 11) 77; (2008) 4 NWLR (Part 1078) 465 _Abubakar v Yar’Adua_(2008) 4 NWLR (Part 618) 405 _Achineku v Ishagba_(1988) 4 NWLR (Part 89) 411 _Action Congress v INEC_(2007) 12 NWLR (Part 1048) 222; (2007) 30 (Part II) NSCQR 1254 _Adah v Adah_(2001) NWLR (Part 705) 1 _Adeniji v NBN_(1989) 7 NWLR (Part 960) 212 _Aderounwu v Olowu_(2000) 4 NWLR (Part 652) 253 _Adesanya v President of Nigeria_(1981) 5 SC 112 _Adimora v Ajufo & others _(1988) 3 NWLR (Part 80) 1 _Agballah v Nnamani_(2005) All FWLR (Part 245) 1052 _Agbi v Ogbe_(2006) 11 NWLR (Part 990) 65 _Ajadi v Ajibola_(2004) 16 NWLR (Part 898) 91 _Akanni v Makanju_(1978) 11 SC 13 _Akinfosile v Ijose_(1960) SCNLR 447; (1960) 5 FSC 192 _Akinfosile v Ijose_(1979) 6–10 SC 110 _Akpan v Umoh_(1999) 11 NWLR (Part 627) _Amadi v NNPC_(2000) 10 NWLR (Part 674) 76 _Amaechi v INEC_(2008) 5 NWLR (Part 1080) 227; (2008) 33 NSCQR (Part I) 332 _Anyaegbunam v Attorney-General Ananmbra State_(2001) 6 NWLR (Part 710) 532 _Aqua Ltd v Ondo Sports Council_(1988) 3 NSCC (Vol. 19) (Part 111) 22 _Arase v Arase_(1981) 5 SC 33 _Are v Adisa_(1967) 1 All NLR 148 _Attorney-General, Kano State v Attorney-General of the Federation_(2007) All FWLR (Part 364) 238 _Attorney-General, Ondo State v Attorney-General of the Federation_(2002) FWLR (Part III) 1972 _Atuyeye v Ashamu_(1987) 1 NWLR (Part 49) 267 _Awojugbagbe Light Industries v Chinukwe_(1995) 4 NWLR (Part 390) 379 _Awolowo v Shagari_(1979) 6–9 SC 51 _Awuse v Odili_(2005) 16 NWLR (Part 952) 416 _Balewa v Muazu_(1999) 5 NWLR (Part 604) 636 _Balogun v Labiran_(1988) 3 NWLR (Part 80) 66 _Balonwu v Ikpeazu_ 13 NWLR (Part 947) 479 _Balonwu v Obi_(2007) 5 NWLR (Part 1028) 488 _Bamaiyi v Attorney-General of the Federation_(2001) 12 NWLR (Part 727) 468 _Basheer v Same_(1992) 4 NWLR (Part 236) 491 _Bijou v Oshidarohwa_(1992) 6 NWLR (Part 249) 463 _Boniface Anyika & Co _(_Nigeria_) _Ltd v Uzor_(2006) 15 NWLR (Part 1003) 560 _Buhari v Obasanjo_(2005) 23 NSCQR 575; (2005) 13 NWLR (Part 941) 1 _Chukwuogor v Chukwuogor_(2007) All FWLR (Part 349) 1154 _Dagaci of Dere v Dagaci of Ebwa_(2006) 7 NWLR (Part 979) 382 _Denloye v Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee_(1968) All NLR 306 _Economides v Thomopulos Ltd_(1956) FSC 7 _Edokpolo & Co Ltd v Sem-Edo Wire Ind. Ltd _(1989) 4 NWLR (Part 116) 473 _Effiom v State_(1995) 1 NWLR (Part 373) 507 _Elemo v Omolade_(1968) NMLR 359 _Elias v Omobare_(1982) 5 SC 25 _Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim v Adewumi_(1966) 2 ALR (comm) 85 _Eze v Okolonji_(1997) 7 NWLR (Part 513) 515 _Ezemba v Ibeneme_(2004) 4 NWLR (Part 894) 617 _Fadlattah v Arewa Textile Ltd_(1997) 8 NWLR (Part 518) 546 _Fagunwan v Adibi_(2004) 17 NWLR (Part 093) 544 _Falae v Obasanjo_(No. 2) (1999) 4 NWLR (Part 599) 476 _Fawehinmi v NBA_(No. 1) (1989) 2 NWLR (Part 104) 409 _Ferponle v UTITHBM_(1991) 4 NWLR (Part 183) 43 _Finebone v Brown_(1999) 4 NWLR (Part 600) 613 _Finunion Ltd v MV Briz_(1997) 10 NWLR (Part 523) 95 _FMG v Sani_(No. 2) (1989) 4 NWLR (Part 117) 624 _Fumodoh v Aboro_(1991) 9 NWLR (Part 214) 210 _Globe Fishing Industries Ltd v Coker_(1990) 7 NWLR (Parts 1 & 2) 265 _Hambe v Hueze_(2000) 4 NWLR (Part 703) 372 _Haruna v Modibbo_(2004) 16 NWLR (Part 900) 487 _Hashidu v Goje_(2003) 15 NWLR (Part 843) 361 _Hi-Flow Farm Ind v Unibadan_(1993) 4 NWLR (Part 290) 719 _Ifezue v Mbadugha_(1984) 1 SCNLR 427 _Igbodin v Obiank_(1976) NMLR 212 _Ihute v INEC_(1999) 4 NWLR (Part 599) 360 _Imam v Sheriff_(2005) 4 NWLR (Part 914) 80 _Imana v Robinson_(1979) 3–4 SC 1 _Imiere v Salami_(1989) 2 NWLR (Part 131) 131 _INEC v Nnaji_(2004) 16 NWLR (Part 900) 473 _Iwelegbu v Ezeani_(1999) 12 NWLR (Part 630) 266 _Jalingo v Nyame_(1992) 3 NWLR (Part 231) 538 _Jikantoro v Dantoro_(2004) 18 NWLR 646 _Kabo Air v INCO Ltd_(2003) 6 NWLR (Part 816) 323 _Kate Ent. Ltd v Deawoo_(1978) 4 SC 91 _Kate Ent. Ltd v Deawoo_(1985) 2 NWLR (Part 5) 116 _Kudu v Aliyu_(1992) 3 NWLR (Part 231) 598 _Kwajaffa v Bank of the North_(2004) NSCQR 343 _Ladoja v INEC_(2007) 7 SC 99 _Lawal v UTC Plc_(2005) 13 NWLR (Part 943) 601 _Lewis & Peat v Akhimien _(1976) 7 SC 157 _Mogaji v Odofin_(1978) 4 SC 91 _Na’bature v Mahuta_(1992) 9 NWLR (Part 263) 585 _Nafiu v The State_(1980) 8–11 SC 130 _Ndoma-Egba v Chukwuogor_(2004) 6 NWLR (Part 869) 382 _Nigerian LNG Ltd v African Development Insurance Co Ltd_(1995) 8 NWLR (Part 416) 677 _Nnajiofor v Ukonu_(1985) 2 NWLR (Part 9) 686 _Nneji v Chukwu_(1988) 3 NWLR (Part 81) 184 _Noibi v Fikolati_(1987) 1 NWLR (Part 52) 619 _Nuhu v Ojele_(2003) 18 NWLR (Part 852) 251 _Nwobodo v Onoh_(1984) 1 SC 1 _Obasanjo v Yusuf_(2004) 9 NWLR (Part 877) 144 _Obi v INEC_(2007) 11 NWLR (Part 1046) 565 _Obi-Odu v Duke_(2005) 10 NWLR (Part 932) 81 _Obun v Ebun_(2006) All FWLR (Part 327) 419 _Odulaja v Haddard_(1973) 11 SC 357 _Ogbuinyinya v Okudo_(1979) 6–9 SC 32 _Ogidi v The State_(2005) 5 NWLR (Part 918) 286 _Ojiegba v Okwaranyia_(1962) 2 SCNLR 358 _Ojokolobo v Alamu_(1987) 3 NWLR (Part 61) 377 _Okereke v Yar’adua_(2008) 342 NSCQR 1370 _Okonkwo v C.C.B._(_Nigeria_) _Plc_(2003) 8 NWLR (Part 822) 347 _Okotie-Eboh v Manager_(2004) 18 NWLR (Part 905) 242 _Okpuriwu v Okpokan_(1988) 4 NWLR (Part 90) 554 _Okuarume v Obabokor_(1965) All NLR 360 _Olale v Ekwelendu_(1989) 4 NWLR (Part 115) 326 _Olaniyan v University of Lagos_(1985) 2 NWLR (Part 9) 599 _Omoboriowo v Ajasin_(1984) 1 SCNLR 108 _Ondo State University v Folayan_(1994) 7 NWLR (Part 354) 1 _Onochie v Odogwu_(2006) 25 NSCQR 387 _Onwuchekwa v CCB_(1991) 5 NWLR (Part 603) 409 _Onyeanusi v Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal_(2002) FWLR (Part 113) 272 _Onyenge v Ebere_(2004) 13 NWLR (Part 889) 39 _Otapo v Sunmonu_(1987) 2 NWLR (Part 58) 587 _Oviawe v IRB Ltd_(1993) 3 NWLR (Part 492) 126 _Owuru v Awuse_(2004) All FWLR (Part 211) 1429 _Peters v David_(1999) 5 NWLR (Part 603) 486 _Sanusi v Ayoola_(1992) 9 NWLR (Part 265) 275 _Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Pan Atlantic Shipping and Transport Agencies Ltd_(1987) 1 NWLR (Part 49) 212 _Schroder v Major_(1989) 2 NWLR (Part 101) 1 _Seismograph Services_(_Nigeria_) _Ltd v Eyuafe_(1976) 9–10 SC 135 _Skenconsult Ltd v Ukey_(1981) NSCC 1 _Sodipo v Lemminkamen OY_(1992) 8 NWLR (Part 258) 229 _Sorunke v Odebunmi_(1960) SCNLR 414 _State v Azeez_(2008) 4 SC 188 _State v Ilori_(1983) 1 SCNL 94 _Stirling Civil Engineering_(_Nigeria_) _Ltd v Yahaya_(2005) 11 NWLR (Part 935) 181 _Swem v Dzungwe_(1966) NMLR 297; (1960) 1 SCNLR 111 _Tsoho v Yahaya_(1999) 4 NWLR (Part 600) 657 _Tukur v Govt. of Gongola State_(1989) 4 NWLR (Part 117) 517 _UBN Ltd v Oredein_(1992) 6 NWLR (Part 274) 355 _UBN Plc v Sparkling Breweries Ltd_(2000) 15 NWLR (Part 698) 200 _Unilag v Aigoro_ Suit No. SC 32/1984 (Unreported) _University of Lagos v Aigoro_(1984) NSCC 745 _UNTHBM v Nnoli_(1994) 8 NWLR (Part 363) 376 _Usman v Garke_(2003) 15 NSCQR 24 _UTC_(_Nigeria_) _Ltd v Pomotei & others _(1989) 2 NWLR (Part 103) 244 _Woluchem v Gudi_(1981) 5 SC 291 _Yakubu v Abioye_(2001) FWLR (Part 83) 2212 **Foreign** _Barnes v Jarris_[1953] 1 WLR 649 _Goodrich v Peimer_[1957] AC 65 _Hill v William Hill_(_Park Lane_) _Ltd_[1949] AC 530 _Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford_[1880] 5 AC (HL) 215 _Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner_[1861] 30 LJ Ch. 379 _London and Clydesdale Estate v Aberdeen District Council_[1980] 1 WLR 182 _Morgan v Simpson_[1975] 1 QB 151 _Re Kensington North Parliamentary Election_[1960] 2 All ER 150 _Ruffle v Rogers_[1982] QB 1220 _Thompson v Goold and Co_[1910] AC 409 _Wallersteiner v Moir_[1974] 1 WLR 99 _Woodward v Sarsons_ LRC 733; 1875 L.R. 10 C.P. 733 **The following statutes were referred to in this judgment:** Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979: S 216 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999: Ss 4(7)(_a_), (_b_), (_c_); 36(1); 46(1); 137(1)(_i_); 146; 217; 237(1); 239(1)(_a_), (_b_), (_c_), (2); 240; 248; 272(1); 285(1)(_a_), (_b_), (_c_), (_d_), (2), (3), (4) Court of Appeal Act, 2004: S 30 Electoral Act, 2002: S 135(1) Electoral Act, 2006: Ss 10–25; 45(1), (2); 48; 49(1); 53(1); 63; 64; 67(1), (2); 75; 135; 145(1)(_b_), (2); 146(1)(_a_), (_b_), (_c_); 159(1) Evidence Act, 2004: Ss 74; 76; 77(_a_); 78; 79; 83; 86; 87; 88; 90(_b_), (_c_); 91(2); 92(1); 93(1); 95(_e_); 109; 111(1); 112; 135(1); 136; 137(1), (2); 138 Interpretation Act, 1964: S 10(2) Interpretation Act, 2004: S 23 Notaries Public Act: Ss 2(2); 19 Oaths Act Representation of the People Act: S 37 Supreme Court Act: S 22 **The following decree was referred to in this judgment:** State Government Decree No. 50 of 1991: S 92(1) **The following law was referred to in this judgment:** High Court Law of Eastern Nigeria, 1963: S 26 **Foreign** Parliamentary and Municipal Election Act, 1872 **The following rules were referred to in this judgment:** **Nigeria** Court of Appeal Rules: Order 19, r 7 Election Tribunal and Court Practice Direction, 2007: Paragraph 1(1)(_a_), (_b_), (_c_), 6(1), (2), (3) Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules: Order 26, rr 13; 14(1) High Court of Abia State (Civil Procedure) Rules: Order 43, r 1 Rules of Procedure for Election Petitions: Paragraph 50 Supreme Court Rules: Order 8, r 2 **Foreign** RSC: Order 19, r 7 **Tobi, JSC (Delivered the lead judgment):–** The Presidential Election was conducted on 21 April 2007 throughout Nigeria. In that election, the country is one constituency and it is the Presidential Constituency. The results were announced, two days later and precisely on 23 April 2007. The second respondent, Professor Maurice Iwu, announced the results at a World Press Conference. He declared Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and Dr Goodluck Jonathan, the fourth and fifth respondents respectively as the winners. They were the fifth and sixth respondents in the Court of Appeal. Their families and supporters jubilated. They were happy. The two candidates were happy too. They should be. They contested the election and they won. There could not have been a happier moment in their lives at the material time. In the results, Major General Muhammadu Buhari, ANPP, scored 6,605,291 votes. Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, PDP, scored 24,638,063 votes. While the fourth and fifth respondents were happy, the appellant was not happy. He rejected the results. He felt that the election was inconclusive. He filed an election petition together with Chief Edwin Ume-Ezoke, his running mate. Chief Edwin Ume-Ezoke later withdrew from the petition they filed together. They therefore parted ways. General Muhammadu Buhari asked for the following reliefs in paragraph 27 of the petition: “(i) That the fifth respondent was not qualified to contest the Presidential election of 21 April 2007 consequent upon which his election together with the 6th respondent as President and Vice-President respectively is void. (ii) That the election to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria conducted on 21 April 2007 is invalid and therefore cancelled. (iii) That the third respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for, without any just or probable cause, involving the military in a purely civil matter, the conduct of election, contrary to the powers conferred on his office by section 217 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (iv) That the first respondent conducts another election for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria between the remaining 22 (twenty-two) candidates within 3 (three) months. (v) That the second respondent in the person of Professor Maurice Iwu be disqualified from participation in the conduct of any future elections in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (vi) Th