- Tribunal adjourns till May 18
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, was in attendance at the election tribunal where his application for a live broadcast of court proceedings was adjourned to May 18.
The former vice president who is challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential alongside his political platform arrived at the tribunal around 8:34 am in the company of loyalists and friends including the Kogi State governorship candidate of the PDP, Senator Dino Melaye.
Others were former Chairman of the PDP, Uche Secondus; former Cross River Governor Senator Liyel Imoke; and former Adamawa Governor Boni Haruna among others.
In an application dated May 5, 2023, Atiku and his political party, the PDP, are specifically praying to the tribunal for “An order Directing the Court’s Registry and the parties on modalities for admission of Media Practitioners and their Equipment into the courtroom.”
The application filed on their behalf by their team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, is predicated amongst other grounds that: The matter before the Honourable Court is a dispute over the outcome of the Presidential Election held on 25th February 2023, a matter of national concern and public interest, involving citizens and voters in the 36 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, who voted and participated in the said election; and the International Community as regards the workings of Nigeria’s Electoral Process.
They contended that being a unique electoral dispute with a peculiar constitutional dimension, it is a matter of public interest whereof millions of Nigerian citizens and voters are stakeholders with a constitutional right to receive.
“An integral part of the constitutional duty of the Court to hold proceedings in public is a discretion to allow public access to proceedings either physically or by electronic means.
“With the huge and tremendous technological advances and developments in Nigeria and beyond, including the current trend by this Honourable Court towards embracing electronic procedures, virtual hearing and electronic filing, a departure from the Rules to allow a regulated televising of the proceedings in this matter is in consonance with the maxim that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
“Televising court proceedings is not alien to this Honourable Court, and will enhance public confidence.
While ruling on Thursday, Justice Haruna Tsammani said the application will be heard along with other applications by the respondents including those seeking the dismissal of the joint petition by Atiku and the PDP.
The decision to shift further pre-hearing session to Thursday was a collective position taken by counsel to both parties to the petition.
Lead counsel to Atiku Abubakar and the PDP, Chris Uche, SAN, informed the court that parties have met to streamline their positions as regards documents to be admitted or objected to.
Making his submissions to that effect, Uche said: “My lords in other to have a seamless progression of the pre-hearing session, counsel for the respective parties had met and put heads together to harmonise and to streamline the vital areas or components of the pre-hearing conference.
” The first item resolved by the various counsel was on documents. We agreed to set up a team together to look at all the documents in other to eliminate objections while tendering them from the bar.
“We intend to do that between Monday and Tuesday and then prepare a schedule of documents to facilitate the proceedings.
“The second issue for trial is that for the petitioners, we have filed ours on May 11 and served on the respondents, subject to the modification of the court, we intend to move it on Thursday.
“Lastly, we discussed motions pending before the court. At the moment, we have just one motion filed on May 7 (motion seeking live broadcast ) and we are yet to receive a response from the respondents. We therefore proposed that the pre-hearing session be adjourned to next week Thursday,” Uche said.
Counsel representing all the respondents: Abubakar Mahmoud for INEC; Wole Olanipekun for Tinubu and Shettima; and Charles Edosomwam for APC, all confirmed the above development.
They equally disclose their intention to file their/ that they will file a separate response to Atiku’s petition for a live broadcast of the tribunal’s proceedings.
After listening to submissions of counsel, Justice Haruna Tsammani acceded to the request and adjourned the petition to Thursday, May 18.
In a similar development, the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement(APM) was adjourned to Thursday, May 18 on similar circumstances.
The application for live telecast, Atiku has filed in the petition through his legal team led by Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, wherein, he asked the Court to declare him the winner or in the alternative order a rerun between him and Tinubu or have the entire election nullified and a fresh one conducted.
He urged the tribunal to declare him winner or in the alternative order a rerun between him and Tinubu or have the entire election nullified and a fresh one conducted.
Listed as respondents in the petition marked CA/PEPC/05/2023 are INEC, Tinubu and his party, APC.
Atiku and the PDP are contesting the election on four grounds:
“The election of the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) is invalid by reason of noncompliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“The election of the 2nd respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices.
“The 2nd respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
“The 2nd respondent was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election.”
Atiku and the PDP are praying to the court for the following:
“That it may be determined that the 2nd respondent was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast in the election and therefore the declaration and return of the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent as the winner of the presidential election conducted on February 25, 2023 is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, undue, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
“That it may be determined that the return of the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent was wrongful, unlawful, undue, null and void having not satisfied the requirements of the Electoral Act 2022 and the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), which mandatorily requires the 2nd respondent to score not less than one quarter (25 per cent) of the lawful votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
“That it may be determined that the 2nd respondent was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the said election. “That it may be determined that the 1st petitioner having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the Presidential election of Saturday, February 25, 2023, be returned as the winner of the election and be sworn in as the duly elected President of Nigeria.
In the alternative, “an order directing the 1st respondent to conduct a second election (run-off) between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent.”
On its part, APM is in its petition urging the court to void “all the votes scored” by Mr Tinubu in the presidential election in view of his non-qualification as a candidate of” the APC.
The party wants the court to declare the presidential candidate of a rival party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, who is also pursuing his separate petition, as the winner of the election.
The petitioner argued that Mr Tinubu’s victory will not stand due to the “flawed process” of nominating his vice presidential pick, Kashim Shettima.
Mr Tinubu while submitting his presidential nomination form to INEC in June 2022, chose Ibrahim Masari, a politician from President Muhammadu Buhari’s home state Katsina, as a “placeholder” for the substantive vice presidential candidate who would later be Mr Shettima.
contended that Mr Tinubu nominated Mr Masari and forwarded the latter’s name to INEC as a vice presidential candidate.
Referencing Sections 131 (C) and 142 of the constitution, the petitioner said Mr Masari “withdrew his purported nomination thereby invalidating the nomination” of Mr Tinubu as APC’s presidential candidate.
In the three-week gap between the period of Mr Masari’s notice of withdrawal and his actual pull-out from the contest, APM argued that by the time Mr Tinubu picked Mr Shettima as his running mate, the president-elect’s “candidature had lapsed” and he was no longer in a position constitutionally to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the APC.