By Yemi Yusuf
The Allied Peoples Movement, APM, which is seeking to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu, on Wednesday, closed its case after its only witness, Aisha Abubakar, appeared before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja.
The witness, who is the Assistant Welfare Director of the party, tendered seven batches of documentary evidence before the court to establish the party’s case that Tinubu was not qualified to participate in the 2023 presidential election.
Since none of the respondents in the case opposed the admissibility of the documents, the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel admitted them in evidence as exhibits.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and Mr. Ibrahim Masari were named respondents in the matter. APM had earlier declined to withdraw its petition against President Tinubu’s election.
The court had on May 30, suspended further proceedings in the matter after counsel to President Tinubu, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, drew its attention to a judgement of the Supreme Court which he said settled the issue the APM raised in its petition.
Chief Olanipekun, SAN, 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 aforementioned judgement of the apex court touched on the substance of APM’s petition since the only ground the party 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.
However, despite the decision of the apex court,the petitioner, through its lawyer, Mr. Gideon Idiagbonya, said it was ready to pursue its case against Tinubu to its logical conclusion.
Consequently, at the resumed proceedings on Wednesday, the party, tendered in evidence, exhibits it said would establish its case that Tinubu was ineligible to contest the presidential election.
Part of these included documents on Masari’s nomination by the APC as Tinubu’s running mate for the election.
However, before the witness could exit the box, APC’s lead counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, tendered through her, a copy of the Supreme Court judgement which the Respondents said had earlier settled the issue the APM raised in the petition.
Meanwhile, the Justice Tsammani-led panel has 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 judgement.
Specifically, the APM, in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, 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 his 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 because by then, “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”.
More so, APM contended that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, and 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. It sought “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”.
Likewise, it wanted an order setting aside the Certificate of Return that was issued to the President by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
Both President Tinubu and the APC had since filed processes to challenge the competence of the petition which they said was bereft of merit.
