Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has fixed July 14 for adoption of written arguments in the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) which closed its case against the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The petitioner, yesterday, closed its case after the testimony of ots sole witness before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
In her evidence before the court, the witness, Aisha Abubakar who identified herself as a politician and the Assistant Welfare Director of the party, tendered seven batches of documentary evidence before the court to prove the case of the petitioners.
It is the contention of the party that Tinubu was not qualified to participate in the 2023 presidential election.
In its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, APM specifically contended that the withdrawal of Mr. Masari, who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.
It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.
According to the petitioner, as at the time Tinubu announced Shettima as the Vice Presidential candidate, “he was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regards to the provisions of section 142 of the 1999 Constitution”.
In addition, APM, argued that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that his subsequent withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.
It, therefore, prayed the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC as at February 25 when the election was conducted by INEC having violated the provisions the of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“An order nullifying and voiding all the votes scored by Tinubu in the presidential election in view of his non-qualification as a candidate of the APC”.
Meanwhile, proceedings were suspended in the petition after the attention of the court was drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court, which counsel to President Tinubu, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, said settled the issue the APM raised in its petition.
Olanipekun maintained that an appeal the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, filed against his client, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, bordered on the legality or otherwise of his client’s nomination to contest the election by the APC.
He argued that the said judgment of the Supreme Court touched on the substance of APM’s petition.
The senior lawyer argued that the only ground the APM canvassed in its petition, was the fact that the Vice President, Shettima, had double nominations, prior to the presidential election that held on February 25.
Insisting that the issue had since been settled by the Supreme Court, Tinubu’s lead counsel, said: “As officers of this court, it behoves us to assist the court in all circumstances and also bring to the attention of yours lordships, decisions of courts, even from other jurisdictions, which relate to any matter pending before yours lordships.
“Even if those decisions do not necessarily align with the interest of our clients. If becomes more imperative if we are aware or abreast of any decision of the Supreme Court which touches on matters within the proceedings before your lordships.
“In this wise my lords, this particular petition which has just been called in respect of which the sole issue that is being ventilated is the nomination of the 1st Respondent who we represent.
“We are aware that the Supreme Court gave a judgement on the issue on Friday, May 23, in respect of appeal No: SC/CV/501/2023, and the parties involved were PDP Vs INEC& 3 Ors, where the apex court considered all the issues and resolved them.
“We will confirm from the petitioners, whether in the light of the Supreme Court decision, there will still be the need to continue with this petition,” he added.
Inspite of the said decision of the apex court, APM through its counsel, Mr. Gideon Idiagbonya, said it was ready to pursue its case against Tinubu to its logical conclusion.
At the resumed proceedings on Wednesday, the petitioner called its only witness and also tendered in evidence, exhibits it said would establish its case that Tinubu was ineligible to contest the presidential election.
Part of exhibits tendered by the witness in evidence included documents on Masari’s nomination by the APC as Tinubu’s running mate for the election.
But in a counter move, counsel to the APC, Lateef Fagbemi,SAN, tendered through the witness, a certified true copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
On his part, counsel to Tinubu and Shettima, Wole Olanipekun, asked the witness to read some portions of the Supreme Court judgment in the open court.
At the close of the exercise, Justice Tsammani-led panel adjourned the matter till July 14 for all the parties to adopt their final briefs of argument, after which the court will fix a date to deliver its judgment.
