Abuja — The Supreme Court will tomorrow deliver judgment on the appeal filed by Muhammadu Buhari and Atiku Abubakar against the verdict of the Presdidential Election Petitions Tribunal which upheld the election of President Umaru Yar'Adua in April last year.

Buhari is the Presidential candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and Atiku, of the Action Congress (AC). Yar'Adua belongs to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

A full panel of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Idris Kutigi had at the last hearing on October 23 told counsel that a judgment date would be communicated to them.

Daily Independent learnt that all the counsel have been notified that the ruling will be delivered tomorrow.

Both Buhari and Atiku are asking the court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal which sat as the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal.

Atiku, in his brief of argument presented by his lawyer, Emeka Ngige, said the heavens would not fall if Yar'Adua's election is nullified.

He asked the court to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) under the Chairmanship of Maurice Iwu from conducting a re-run ballot that may be ordered.

He argued that "with the demonstrated level of desperation on the part of the Commission and the fifth respondent (Iwu) to exclude the first petitioner (Atiku) from contesting the election and the consequent perversion of the electoral process, this court should have no difficulty in nullifying the election.

"After all, several Governorship elections have been nullified by the tribunals and the Court of Appeal in several states in Nigeria and heaven has not fallen.

"Whichever way the April 21, 2007 Presidential election is appraised on the basis of evidence led by the petitioners, and the admissions made by the respondents in varying degrees, the election ought to be nullified.

"We make bold to state that the heavens will not fall if the election is nullified and a fresh election ordered to be supervised by a neutral, impartial and independent personnel in the INEC.

"This court has a golden opportunity and responsibility to save Nigeria from going the way of Kenya and Zimbabwe following the outcome of greatly flawed elections."

The Atiku camp also contended that "the court below was in serious error in invoking the issue of security and welfare of the country as an excuse for saving a seriously flawed election."

Buhari claimed through his lead counsel, Mike Ahamba, that the election result was arbitrarily assigned, with part of it even prepared before hand.

He added: "The results had not been announced in all the states before the INEC went ahead to declare Yar'Adua as the winner of the presidential election.

"We submit that apart from the proof of substantiality of the non-compliance with Section 45(2) of the Electoral Act, which is a finding of fact and a legal conclusion against which there is no appeal, and which is enough to invalidate the election, each of the other six non-compliances proved in the proceedings is capable of affecting the result of the election.

"This is because each of them is a safe-guard provision designed to ensure substantial compliance with the principles of the Act which are fairness, neutrality, and legality.

Ahamba also told the court that the non-serialisation of the ballot papers, among other issues of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, is enough ground for the election to be nullified and another conducted by a new leadership of the INEC.

But Yar'Adua's counsel, Wole Olanipekun, countered that the two appellants failed to prove substantial non-compliance with the law, noting that the evidence produced by Buhari amounted to nothing because it required the testimony of witnesses.

Olanipekun submitted that the Supreme Court lacks the power to grant the reliefs sought by the appelants, as "the reliefs to be granted by the court must be in accordance with the Electoral Act. The reliefs asked for by the appellants are not grantable."

INEC counsel, Kanu Agabi, added that non-compliance, as identified by the appellants, was not enough to vitiate the election, because they did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the lapses affected the result.

Buhari told reporters after the last hearing that he has confidence in the ability of the judiciary to dispense justice, and that the petition was better argued than his appeal against former President Olusegun Obasanjo which was heard for 33 weeks.

Atiku issued a statement on Wednesday saying: "We would be most delighted if the verdict turns out in our favour because it is the right thing to do. We have devoted so much time and resources to prove our contention that the election was a sham.

"If, however, the Supreme Court rules against us for whatever reason known to the Justices, I will have no hesitation but to abide by the verdict. As a responsible and law-abiding politician, my commitment to the rule of law, peaceful quest for justice through our nation's judicial institutions remain unshaken.

"But while reiterating my belief in the rule of law and peaceful avenues for legal redress, I am not losing sight of the repercussions of deodorising the unprecedented fraud in the 2007 Presidential election. Such a decision will deepen our sense of injustice over the electoral heist perpetuated by anti-democratic forces last year."