The Presidential Election Petitions Court has declared that it lacks the powers to hear the petition of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) challenging the qualification.

The Presidential Election Petitions Court has declared that it lacks the powers to hear the petition of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) challenging the qualification of President Bola Tinubu and Kashim Shettima.

Advertorial

Reading the lead judgment on Wednesday, Justice Haruna Tsammani held that the issues brought before the tribunal are pre-election matters, which ought to have been at a high court.

He added that the timeframe of 180 days within which to determine the issue had elapsed.

“In Alhassan and others versus Ishaku and others, it was held that an election tribunal has no jurisdiction on the primary of a political party,” he said.

He said the matters of qualification and disqualification are guided by the provisions of sections 131 and 137(1)(a)(j) of the Nigerian Constitution.

He held that issue complained of was an internal affair of a political party.

APM had contended that Tinubu and Shettima were not validly nominated to contest the February 25. They argue that by the combined reading of sections 131(c) and 142(2) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 and Section 133 of the Electoral Act made them to invalid.

They contend that when Kabiru Masari announced his withdrawal as an APC placeholder on June 24, 2022 to the date Shettima’s name was forwarded to INEC on July 14, 2022, was 21 days which breached Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022, which provides for 14 days for the replacement of a candidate for an election.

The Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, has commenced the delivery of judgement on the petition the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, filed to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu.

The five-member panel of the court led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, had disclosed that it would not read everything in the judgement, especially all the arguments that were canvassed during the hearing.

The panel further stressed that though all the three cases challenging President Tinubu’s election were consolidated, the petitions will however maintain their separate identities.

Whereas the petition by the Labour Party and its candidate in the presidential election that held on February 25, Peter Obi, was called first, however, the panel, kick-started its verdict with that of the APM.

Cited as 1st to 5th defendants in APM’s petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, are the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, and Mr. Kabiru Masari.

Advertorial

During the hearing, while the petitioner, through its lawyer, Mr. Andrew Malgwi, SAN, urged the court to sack Tinubu and withdraw the Certificate of Return that was issued to him by INEC, on the other hand, all the Defendants prayed the court to dismiss the case for want of competence.

President Tinubu, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, maintained that the petition the APM lodged against him, lacked merit.

He argued that the sole issue the party relied upon to seek his sack from office, which bordered on allegation that his Vice President, Shettima, was nominated twice by the APC for different elective positions, had already been decided by the supreme Court.

President Tinubu argued that APM’s petition did not only fail to disclose a reasonably cause of action against him, but was equally bereft of substance.

Likewise, both counsel for the APC, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, and that of INEC, Mr. Steven Adehi, SAN, separately urged the court to dismiss the petition.

Whereas APC told the court that Tinubu’s nomination and eligibility to contest the presidential election that held on February 25, was without fault, on its part, INEC, threw its weight behind the outcome of the poll.

After it had listened to all the parties, the Justice Tsammani-led panel said it would communicate the judgement date to them.

It will be recalled that the APM closed its case on June 21, after its lone witness testified before the court.

Specifically, APM, in its petition, 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 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”.

More so, APM, contended 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”.

As well as an order to set aside the Certificate of Return that was issued to the President by INEC.

The court had on May 30, suspended further proceedings in the matter after counsel to President Tinubu, Chief 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 President Tinubu, 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 judgement of the apex court touched on the substance of APM’s petition.

Tinubu’s lawyer stressed 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.

Following its decision not to withdraw the petition, the APM tendered in evidence before the court, exhibits it said would establish its case that Tinubu was ineligible to contest the presidential election.

Part of exhibits the petitioner tendered in evidence through the witness, Aisha Abubakar, who identified herself as the Assistant Welfare Director of the party, included documents on Masari’s withdrawal as Tinubu’s running mate for the election.

However, before the witness could exit the box, APC’s lead counsel, Prince 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.

On his part, INEC’s lawyer, Mr. Kemi Pinhero, tendered before the court, a letter dated July 6, which the APC wrote to Chairman of the Commission, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, notifying him of the withdrawal of Shettima’s nomination as its senatorial candidate in Borno state.

Equally admitted in evidence by the court was a letter that indicated that one Mr. Lawal Kaka Shehu, was subsequently nominated to replace Shettima as APC’s flag-bearer for senatorial poll.

After the witness was discharged from the box, a Deputy Director at the INEC, Mr. John Arabs, who was summoned through a subpoena, produced and tendered documents in evidence, among which included the “original online form” which Shettima submitted to indicate his withdrawal from the senatorial race.

Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, counsel to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has said that though all eyes are on the Nigerian judiciary, those who are expecting wonders to happen at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on Wednesday (today) may be disappointed and may have a quagmire to contend with.

Ejiofor said this in a statement he personally signed and released on Tuesday night which he captioned, “Elucidation of Fact on the Pun called “Nigeria”: Though Very Unfortunate, But for those still expecting Manna to fall from Heaven tomorrow.”

Advertorial

The legal luminary said that “For those expecting wonders to happen in Court tomorrow, you may have a quagmire to contend with.”

According to him, in Law School, law students are taught that decisions of the courts on any subject must be predicated on the following: the Substantive Laws; Rules of Court and Courts Practice Direction and Judicial Precedents – in this case, it means the Judgment/decisions of the Superior Courts, particularly the Supreme Court’s Judgments on similar subjects, facts, and circumstances.

“Any Judgment founded outside the above considerations cannot stand in Law.”

Ejiofor recalled that October 13, 2022, “The intermediate Court in the land, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division delivered a unanimous landmark Judgment in an Appeal filed by Nnamdi Kanu, wherein the Court of Appeal discharged Nnamdi Kanu of all the frivolous charge filed against him and consequently, directed the Federal Government to release him unconditionally.

“The penultimate Court proceeded to prohibit Nnamdi Kanu’s further detention in any detention facility in Nigeria and forbade Nnamdi Kanu from being tried again in any Court in Nigeria on any offence whatsoever.

“The penultimate Court did not stop at that; the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal unanimously reprimanded the Federal Government for their act of lawlessness in the way Nnamdi Kanu was abducted in Kenya and extraordinarily renditioned to Nigeria. They further declared it as an egregious violation of the extant Laws – local and international – by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

“Curiously, on the 24th October, 2022, a different Panel of Justices of the same Court of Appeal, was constituted, which sat and consequently granted an unprecedented Order, Staying the Execution of Nnamdi Kanu’s constitutionally guaranteed right to personal liberty. Intrinsically, staying the Execution of the same Judgment and far-reaching Orders made by the same Court.

“The fact is that throughout the said Ruling delivered on the 24th day of October, 2022, and argument canvassed by the parties giving rise to the Ruling; there was no place that the Federal Government referred to any criminal decisions of either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in similar facts, if any, or substantive criminal Laws governing the criminal appeals or Court of Appeal Criminal Practice Direction.

“We refer to the unpopular Ruling as unprecedented because the precedents and authorities relied upon by this Panel in staying the execution of the judgment in a criminal appeal, were all civil cases and the Court of Appeal Rules on civil appeals.”

He pointed out that on Wednesday, “a very renowned Justice of the Court of Appeal who presided over the Panel that delivered this unprecedented Ruling and consequently granted the unpopular order staying the execution of the landmark Judgment in Nnamdi Kanu’s criminal appeal; and who incidentally, also presided over the proceedings at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, will also be delivering his own judgment.

“In view of the fate of Nnamdi Kanu and the obvious travesty of justice in his case, we can only wish those hoping that justice prevails tomorrow, godspeed, even as all eyes are now on the Judiciary.”

Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State has asked the contending political parties and their presidential candidates involved in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition, to call their supporters and activists to order as the state will not tolerate what he called illegal and unnecessary protest actions over the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.

This is as Nigerians across the globe eagerly await the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on petitions filed by Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu in the February 25 presidential election, on Wednesday.

In a statement he personally signed, Governor Fubara said that the Rivers State government is concerned about reported threats to law and order by supporters of the presidential candidates who may be dissatisfied with the outcome of the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.

He noted that election petitions and their outcomes are part of the country’s democratic process which is anchored on the rule of law and the majesty of our judicial system as the peaceful and final arbiter of social disputes.

Advertorial

The Governor therefore stated that “Those who may be disappointed by tomorrow’s judgment have the further opportunity to exercise their right of appeal at the Supreme Court where they will be bound by the final decision and outcome.

“As citizens, we are all bound by the rule of law, which gives no room or opportunity for violence and threat to public safety, peace and security in our democratic contestations for political power and the right to govern the people.

“Accordingly, while the Rivers State Government recognizes the protest right of citizens, it will not tolerate any illegal and unnecessary protest actions that negate the rule of law and undermine our collective rights to peace and security.

“We, therefore, advise presidential candidates and their political parties to call their supporters and activists to order and ensure that they avoid actions that are capable of disrupting public safety, peace and security in Rivers State.

“We wish to inform the public that we have placed security agencies on the highest level of alert and directed them to take all necessary measures to forestall any security breaches in Rivers State before, during and after the judgment.

“We are satisfied with the assurances from the security agencies and the proactive measures they are taking to safeguard lives and property and sustain peace and security throughout the state.

“We urge residents to continue to be law-abiding and go about with their lawful activities without fear for their safety as adequate measures are in place to nip any security threat in the bud.

“However, we implore everyone not to hesitate to report any suspicious gatherings or activities around them to the attention of the security agencies for immediate action.”

There is tight security at the Court of Appeal Complex located in the Three Arms Zone, Shehu Shagari Way, Central Business District of Abuja, as the Presidential Election Petition Court gets set to deliver judgment.

The judgment is on three cases challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential election.

Advertorial

Coming about a month after the court heard the closing arguments of parties to the petitions and about two weeks to the expiration of the statutory 180-day lifespans within which the cases filed in March must be heard and determined.

The five-member panel of the court is headed by Haruna Tsammani had reserved judgements on the petitions after hearing the closing arguments of the parties to the cases in early August.

All roads leading to court of the appeal complex is being manned by multiple security operatives, drawn from various arms, including the armed forces, police, men of the Department of State Service (DSS) and the Civil Defence.
The same formation has been placed within in the court complex.

The Chief Registrar of the Court, Mr Umar Bangari in a statement on Monday said that everything had been put in place to ensure that the judgment in the three petitions pending before the court were delivered hitch free.

Bangari said adequate security had been put in place and that only the invited members of political parties and the general public would be allowed into the court room.

This he said was to avoid congestion and security breaches.

He also said media houses that wish to televise the judgment live would be allowed to do so but at no cost to the court.

NAN reports that as at 7.30 a.m, lawyers and journalists were being checked by security operatives.

Major government buildings, including the Federal Secretariat, the National Assembly Complex and the access into the Presidential Villa were being manned by heavy security personnel.

NAN reports that petitions were filed separately by Atiku Abubakar of the PDP, Peter Obi of the

Labour Party and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), to challenging President Tinubu’s victory.

The much-anticipated judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPT) is set to be delivered today.

Recall the Labour Party (LP), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), as well as their presidential candidates, had petitioned the tribunal seeking to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election.

Advertorial

In a statement on Monday, the chief registrar of the Court of Appeal, Umar BangarI announced that the judgment of the presidential election petition tribunal will be broadcast live.

Bangari said, “In a bid to promote transparency and openness, these judgments will be televised live by interested Television Stations for the public to follow.”

The statement noted further that, “Access to the Court premises will be strictly on accreditation. Only accredited individuals, including Counsel and representatives of Political will be granted access into the Courtroomt. Interested. members of the public are advised to watch proceedings from their television sets.

Tinubu had in the February 25 election secured 8,794,726 votes to defeat Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who got 6,984,520, and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) who polled 6,101,533 votes.

Discontent with the outcome, five political parties including the PDP, LP, Action Peoples Party (APP), Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and the Action Alliance (AA) lodged separate petitions before the tribunal seeking to annul Tinubu’s victory.

Entertainer and activist, Charly Boy on Tuesday called on supporters of the Labour Party (LP), known as “Obidients” to occupy all streets in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) ahead of today’s judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) today.

The controversial singer who made the call via his handle on X (formerly known as Twitter) stressed that the move was necessary to retrieve their mandate, which he claimed was stolen.

Advertorial

He said, “We must retrieve our stolen future from these criminals or be ready to face the most horrific hardship ever.”

Fellow Obidient’s,

Anyhow, we must occupy all the streets of Abuja before 6am. We will start with all the streets surrounding court house.
Nobody is dying tomorrow, we know about their scare tactics.
We must retrieve our stolen future from these criminals or be ready to face the consequences”

Recall Charly Boy earlier noted the idea that the broadcast of the judgment to be delivered on the case brought by former vice president, Atiku Abubakar, and former Anambra State governor, Peter Obi, against the election victory of President Bola Tinubu at the February 25 polls, is a trick to prevent Nigerians from storming the court premises.

He said, “The PEPT may not air the live broadcast of the final verdict on the 6th of September 2023 the former announcement could be a trick to prevent Nigerians from coming to the court on that day.”

The National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Lagos state on Tuesday upheld the declaration of Hon. George Adegeye Olawande as the winner of the House of representatives election for Amuwo/Odofin federal constituency, Lagos state, held on 25 February 2023.

The three man tribunal headed by Hon. Justice A.B. Abdulkahi affirmed the victory of the Labour Party lawmaker while delivery judgment on the petition filed against him by the candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Prince Lanre Sanusi.

The Petitioners were challenging the nomination and qualifications of Hon. George Olawande, but the Court dismissed the suit for lacking in evidence.

The tribunal declared that the petitioner’s prayers cannot be granted as the Court of Appeal in his earlier judgment have adjudicated rightly in favour of the defendant (Hon George Adegeye Olawande).

The tribunal in its final judgment returned Hon George Folarin Adegeye Olawande as the authentic Representative for Amuwo Odofin Federal Constituency.

“We note also the needless lavish showering of praises on the legal counsels of both APC and Candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu by the retired Justice.”

PRESS RELEASE • SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
Labour Party

It has become necessary for the Labour Party to draw the attention of the public and indeed democratic watchers to some unfolding developments in the country ahead of tomorrow’s ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC.

The unguarded statement from the former Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Justice Mary Odili in Abuja last week at a colloquium to mark the 25th anniversary of the elevation of a renowned jurist, JK Gadzama to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, and the boasting of some persons, serving Ministers and notable legislators about the outcome has left our party in shock.

Advertorial

When those who should know the importance of the sanctity of the judiciary descend to the arena of abusing it with their preemptive utterances just to show loyalty and support to their interests, we as a party see this as unfortunate and dangerous to our democratic journey as a nation.

We note also the needless lavish showering of praises on the legal counsels of both APC and Candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu by the retired Justice when the gathering was not theirs. We find this extremely undignified of a renowned jurist who rose to the peak of her career in the country’s Apex court and who as the Chairperson of the body of benchers, should be at the forefront of defending the virtuousness of the courts.

Also curious to every discerning mind watching the unfolding events in Nigeria since the February 25th Presidential election is the fact that the PEPC that refused live television coverage of the hearings of the petition, and is now anxious to have the conclusion beamed live.

What is it that has happened between the hearing period and the delivery of the judgment that the live coverage which they claimed was a policy issue changed suddenly at the delivery point?

We are aware of the efforts of the agents of the States to orchestrate problems and blame them on the political opposition. We wish to emphasize that it is the right of the people in a democracy to demonstrate and the obligation of state security agents to protect the demonstrators and those not demonstrating.

Meanwhile, we implore Nigerians to remain calm and peaceful, abide by the rule of law, and understand that this matter has not reached its logical and final conclusion.

Our concern as a critical stakeholder in Nigeria’s project especially the democratic evolution is that what is being destroyed with all these clever by half playing on people’s intelligence is Nigeria as a nation not necessarily an individual.

Anybody who loves this country should appreciate the importance of due process and the rule of law because, without it, this country is going nowhere.

SIGN

Obiora Ifoh
National Publicity Secretary
Labour Party.

Sir Simon Martins Okechukwu, former Special Assistant to the immediate past governor of Enugu state, Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, on Tuesday, resigned his membership of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.

Okechukwu, a writer and author of repute, submitted his letter of resignation to the PDP hierarchy at his Mkpologu ward in Uzo-Uwani council area.

Advertorial

He alleged that his decision to resign was a result of ‘deep-rooted deception by party leaders, and apparent lack of internal democracy in the party’.

The letter sighted by Daily Gazette and addressed to Chief Robert Ezeagu, chairman, Peoples Democratic Party, Nkpologu Ward in Uzo-Uwani Local Government Area reads in part;

“Effective today 5th September, 2023, and by virtue of this letter, I hereby wish to inform you of my resignation from the PDP. The decision was informed by deep-rooted deception by party leaders, apparent lack of internal democracy in the party, and non-recognition of contributions of a good number of members, including me.

“Events shortly after the general elections clearly showed that I have no future if I continue to remain as a member of the party.

“Indeed, it has been a great honour to contribute to the development of the party in Nkpologu Ward, Uzo-Uwani Local Government and Enugu State at large.”

The resignation letter was copied to the chairman, PDP, Uzo-Uwani LGA, Umuluokpa; the party chairman, Enugu State, and the national chairman of PDP,
Wadata Plaza, Abuja.