APM: Supreme Court didn’t determine our petition on Tinubu, Shettima’s ‘void’ ticket

The Allied Peoples Movement (APM) has told the Presidential Election Petitions Court that contrary to claims by the All Progressives Congress (APC), President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima, the Supreme Court did not determine its main petition challenging their qualification for the February 25 presidential election. In a reply to the final written […]

The Allied Peoples Movement (APM) has told the Presidential Election Petitions Court that contrary to claims by the All Progressives Congress (APC), President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima, the Supreme Court did not determine its main petition challenging their qualification for the February 25 presidential election.

In a reply to the final written address of the respondents to its petition dated July 6, 2023, APM’s counsel, Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), argued that their case had always been that by the combined reading of sections 131(c) and 142(2) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 and Section 133 of the Electoral Act, 2023, Tinubu and Shettima were not validly nominated to contest for offices and are therefore disqualified from the election.

APC, Tinubu and Shettima had argued through their lawyers, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) that by the verdict of the Supreme Court in SC/CV/501/2023, PDP vs INEC and three others on May 26, the issue of the double nomination of Shettima had been determined and was binding on all parties.

But APM argues that the Supreme Court in its leading judgement did not touch on the merit of the case to warrant it being an issue estoppel as it only dealt with the lack of locus standi of the PDP to bring the matter at that stage, adding that the contributory judgement of the justices was not the leading judgement.

APM further submitted that on the date when Kabiru Masari announced his withdrawal as the vice presidential candidate of the APC on June 24, 2023 to the date Shettima’s name was forwarded, July 14, 2022, was 21 days, which breached the provision of Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022, which provided for only 14 days for the replacement of a candidate for an election.

• Exam body to address students’ failure in English, Mathematics
• Subsidy: ‘Tinubu takes 2 steps forward, 10 steps backwards’

The APM counsel averred that, “It is common on all sides in this petition that the 4th respondent (Shettima) was the candidate of the 2nd respondent (APC) for the 2023 election for Borno Central Senatorial District before the withdrawal by the 5th respondent (Masari). Upon the withdrawal of the 5th respondent (Masari), the 3rd respondent (Tinubu) nominated the 4th respondent (Shettima) as his replacement.

“It is beyond argument that the 4th respondent (Shettima) was nominated for two offices at two different constituencies for the 2023 elections. It is submitted that Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022 prohibits a candidate from being nominated for more than one constituency.”

He said the affidavit of withdrawal by Masari before the FCT High Court on June 24, 2022 was with the tone of “I hereby wish and I do voluntarily withdraw” which was forthwith and immediate.

The lawyer called for adherence to the higher ideals of the law, saying “May we conclude this address by stating forcefully that it is the responsibility of every player in the electoral system of any democratic country, be he a contestant or umpire or in whatever capacity to abide by the laws made, work the laws made, operate the laws and interpret the laws in such a way that they enthrone at every stage of the process the dictates of the law.”

The court had reserved judgment in the petition.