Atiku’s Legal Team Asks Justice Bulkachuwa To Appoint Replacement At Tribunal

Channels Television  
Updated June 3, 2019

 

The legal team of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has asked the President of the Court of Appeal to appoint a replacement for the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal.

A member of the team, Silas Onu, made the request in a letter dated May 31, 2019, and addressed to the Appeal Court President, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa.

Channels Television obtained a stamped copy of the letter which was received by the Presidents Chamber of the Court of Appeal, Abuja.


RELATED
Atiku, PDP File Motion Asking Bulkachuwa To Recuse Herself From Tribunal
Justice Bulkachuwa Withdraws From Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal


Mr Onu, on behalf of the legal team, reminded Justice Bulkachuwa that it has been nine days (at the date of the letter) since she recused herself from the panel of the Tribunal.

He, however, noted that nothing had been heard since the judge took the decision.

The lawyer explained that the letter became necessary considering the “strict requirements of keeping to the constitutional calendar of an election petition”.

He added that it was obvious that time was running out fast against the petitioners.

Mr Onu, therefore, urged the Appeal Court President to appoint a replacement, so that they can get ahead with the hearing of the petition.

Former Vice President Abubakar and the PDP had filed petitions at the Tribunal to challenge the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 23 Presidential Election.

They had filed a suit asking Justice Bulkachuwa, who led the panel of judges, to withdraw from the Tribunal because her husband, Adamu Bulkachuwa, was elected as a senator on the platform of the APC which was involved in the petition.

On May 22, Justice Bulkachuwa recused herself from heading the Presidential Election Tribunal.

She took the decision after Justice Peter Ige held that there were not enough materials before the court to show that the judge would be biased in the hearing and the decisions at the Tribunal.

Read the letter below: