Follow Us on Google
• Tinubu asks court to dismiss APM suit against his victory
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), yesterday, fixed pre-hearing in the petitions filed by Peoples Democratic party (PDP) and the Action Peoples Movement (APM) for tomorrow.
The five-member panel, led by Haruna Tsammani adjourned after listening to the adoption of answers by all the counsel in the petitions.
The tribunal started pre-hearing on Monday and would hear four petitions challenging Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declaring Tinubu winner of the February 25 presidential election.
Atiku and the PDP in the petition dated March 21, 2023 are challenging the outcome of the Presidential election on Feb 25.
Respondents in the petition marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023, are INEC as 1st respondents, Tinubu as 2nd respondent and the APC as 3rd respondent.
At the resumed pre-hearing, Chris Uche, counsel for the petitioners, Atiku and PDP adopted their answers in the pre-hearing filed on April 27.
He added that the filed motion on notice dated, May 7, and served on all the respondents for permission to televise the sitting nationwide.
Counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud, adopted their answers in the pre-hearing information sheet filed on May 2.
Responding to the live coverage, he said they will await for a formal response.
Similarly, counsel to Tinubu, Olujimi, adopted their answers in the pre-hearing information sheet filed on May 2.
Responding to the live coverage prayed by the petitioners, he said they will reply at the appropriate time.
Lastly, Lateef Fagbemi, counsel to APC also adopted their answers filed their answers on May 2.
In paragraph 14 of the answers, the 3rd respondent on May 8 filed two applications, one seeking the competent of the petition and dismissal of the petition.
He added that the 2nd one is seeking the striking out of the answers by the petitioners.
Responding to the motion for live coverage by the petitioners, he said they will reply at the appropriate time.
Tsammani adjourned until tomorrow for continuation of the pre-hearing session at 2 pm.
He advised parties to harmonise their answers for consideration at the next adjourned date.
He added that the motion for live coverage by the petitioners filed on May 7 will be considered along others.
Meanwhile, Tinubu has asked the Tribunal (PEPT) to dismiss a petition by APM challenging his return as winner of the February 25 presidential election.
In its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, APM argued that the withdrawal of Ibrahim 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.
However, Tinubu, through his legal team, led by Akin Olujinmi, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit and substance.
When the petition was called for hearing, yesterday, the aggrieved party, through its legal team, led by M. O. Atoyebi, adopted answers it filed on April 21, in response to pre-hearing information sheet that was issued by the court.
While Abubakar Mahmood, led the team of eight SANs that appeared for the INEC, Lateef Fagbemi, represented the APC just as Yomi Aliyu appeared for Masari.
After all the parties had adopted their answers, the Tsammani-led five-member panel adjourned further pre-hearing session on the petition till tomorrow.
The tribunal thereafter directed all the parties to identify all applications and documents they would either concede to or object to during full-blown hearing of the matter.
It equally directed the parties to outline issues to be determined in the petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the fifth respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Kashim Shettima.
APM further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.
It posited that 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.”
The party equally 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 Shettima was not qualified to contest as the vice presidential candidate of 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.
