*Say Shetima’s nomination, Tinubu’s alleged conviction outside tribunal’s jurisdiction
Alex Enumah in Abuja
About 20 days after the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi, approached the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to challenge the declaration of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC), winner of the February 25 presidential election, the APC Monday rose in defence of its victory at the polls.
Besides, the APC, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has also rose in defence of the poll, claiming that contrary to the allegations of LP and Mr Peter Obi, the presidential election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.
Consequently, both APC and INEC have therefore in their separate replies to the LP and Obi petition’s asked the court to deny them all the reliefs sought on the grounds that their petition is “devoid of any merit and also founded on frivolity”.
Besides its reply brief to the petition, the APC also on Monday filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the hearing of the petition on the grounds that the petition is incompetent and lacking merit, adding that the tribunal lacked necessary jurisdiction to entertain it in the first place.
Amongst others, APC claimed that the Labour Party lacked the necessary locus standi to initiate the suit against the outcome of the presidential election on the grounds that it did “not present a valid candidate for that election”.
The APC in the reply filed by Mr Thomas Ojo from the chambers of Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, claimed that Obi was still a member of the PDP as at the time he was sponsored by the Labour Party.
“The 1st Petitioner herein resigned his membership of the PDP on May 26, 2022 and joined the Labour Party the following day being May 27, 2022.
“The 2nd Petitioner herein conducted its Presidential Primary on May 30, 2022 which produced the 1st Petitioner as the candidate it intended to sponsor in the General Election
“By section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 2nd Petitioner is mandated to have submitted its comprehensive register of members to the Ist Respondent 30 days before its presidential primary That is to say the said register of members must have been submitted to the Ist Respondent on or before 30th April, 2022.
“The 1st Petitioner as at April 30, 2022 was still a member of the PDP and his name was not and could not have been in the register of members submitted by the 2nd Petitioner to 1st Respondent”.
In another ground, APC argued that the LP and Obi’s petition was defective because they failed to include candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who came second in the Presidential election with 6,984,520 votes as against the petitioners who came third with 6,101,533 votes.
It is the APC’s submission that “For the Tribunal to grant prayer (iii) of the Petitioners, the Tribunal must have set aside the scores and election of Alhaji: Atiku Abubakar;
“Ahaji Atiku Abubakar must be heard before his votes can be discountenanced by the Tribunal,
“The petition is incompetent for failure to join as a party to the petition the presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Atiku Abubakar the Ist runner up and his political party People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as a Respondent whose right would be affected by the reliefs sought in the petition”.
Responding to the issues of alleged unlawful nomination of the vice presidential candidate, Senator Kasim Shetima and allegations of conviction involving the President-elect, the APC argued both issues are outside the jurisdiction of the election petition tribunal.
The petitioners had urged the tribunal to nullify Tinubu’s election and hold that the APC had no lawful candidate in the presidential poll because the vice president-elect was a senatorial candidate as at the time he was nominated as running mate to Tinubu.
But responding , the APC claimed that complaints bordering on disqualification, nomination and sponsorship of candidates for an election are preelection matters that cannot be raised or canvased before an election tribunal as purportedly done herein by the Petitioners.
In addition, the APC claimed that the issue has become statute barred having not been filed within the time provided by law.
APC further disclosed that the Court of Appeal) has already settled and/or determined the validity of the nomination of the 3rd Respondent as the 2nd Respondent’s lawful running mate for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/ CS/108/2023 decided on 24 March, 2023.
On the issue of alleged conviction and forfeiture involving the President-elect, the APC said, “facts pleaded in paragraphs 28-32 of the petition alleging conviction of the 2nd respondent in 19993 is not pleadable as fact to support grounds of disqualification of the 2nd respondent.
It added that “the issue of forfeiture raised against the 2 Respondent in their petition are already pending before the Federal High Court in suit number FHC/ ABJ/CS/206/2023 between PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V CODE of CONDUCT TRIBUNAL & 6 ORS and raising same before this court is an abuse of court process.
While the APC noted that the petitioners failed to supply facts in support of corrupt practices they claimed marred the February 25 presidential election, it urged the tribunal to dismiss the LP and Obi’s petition with cost for lacking in merit and a waste of the court’s time.
Recall that Obi had last month asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to declare him as the authentic winner of the February 25 presidential election.
Obi in his petition filed by his team of lawyers including 13 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), amongst whom are Dr Livy Uzoukwu, Away Kalu, Onyechi Ikpeazu, Constitutional lawyer, Chief Sebastian Hon and Jibrin Okutepa, hinged his request on the grounds that he and not Tinubu scored majority of lawful votes cast at the presidential poll.
Besides, Obi insisted that Tinubu and his Vice-president-elect, Kasheem Shetima ought not to be on the presidential ballot on grounds that they were not lawfully nominated by their party.
The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Mahmood Yakubu had on March 1, declared Tinubu president-elect on grounds that his party scored majority of votes cast at the poll.
In the results announced Tinubu polled 8,805,835 votes to emerged victorious.
Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) who came second scored 6,984,640 votes while Obi scored 6,984,640 votes.
Dissatisfied by the action of the electoral umpire, Obi and his party had approached the court to set aside the return of Tinubu as president-elect and declare him winner instead.
The petition marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 and filed by Dr Uzoukwu, SAN, is predicated on three grounds amongst which are that; Tinubu as at the time of the election was not qualified to contest the election; the election of Tinubu was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and that Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the presidential election.
While Obi and the Labour Party are the petitioners in the suit dated March 20, 2023, INEC, Tinubu, his Vice-president- elect, Kasheem Shetima and the APC are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents respectively.
In the first ground of the petition, Obi and LP are arguing that the nomination of Shetima as vice president was done in violation of the law and as such should be disqualified.
“The Petitioners aver that on July 14, 2022, the 3rd Respondent, contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, whilst still being a Senatorial candidate for Borno Central Constituency, knowingly allowed himself to be nominated as the Vice Presidential Candidate to the 2nd Respondent on the platform of the 4th Respondent and became the new Candidate for the office of the Vice President on that date (14 July 2022).
“The Petitioners shall rely on Form EC11A signed by the 3rf Respondent and the officials of the 4th Respondent on that same July 14, 2022.
According to the petitioners, as at the time Shetima purportedly became a Vice Presidential Candidate, he was still the nominated Senatorial candidate of the APC for the Senatorial election for the Borno Central Senatorial Constituency.
“It is also the Petitioners’ case that a candidate, in this case the 3rd Respondent, shall not knowingly allow himself to be nominated in more than one constituency.
“The Petitioners shall contend at the trial that the purported sponsorship of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents by the 4th Respondent was rendered invalid by reason of the 3rd Respondent knowingly allowing himself to be nominated as the Vice Presidential Candidate whilst he was still a Senatorial Candidate for the Borno Central Constituency.
“The Petitioners shall further contend that for this reason, the votes purportedly recorded for the 2nd Respondent at the contested Presidential election were/are wasted votes and ought to be disregarded”.
Besides, Obi and LP are insisted that Tinubu also “at the time of the election not qualified to contest for election to the office of President as he was fined the sum of $460,000.00 (Four-Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) for an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking imposed by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483.
Among documents they intend to tender in proving their claim include; a) Verified Complaint for Forfeiture, submitted by Michael J. Shepard (United States Attorney) and signed by Marsha A. McClellan (Assistant United States Attorney);
b) Stipulations and Compromise Settlement of Claims to the Funds held by Heritage Bank and CitiBank; and
c) Decree of Forfeiture as to Funds held by First Heritage Bank, signed by United States District Judge, John A. Nordberg.
“The Petitioners shall contend that by reason of the said disqualification of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, the votes purportedly recorded for the 2nd Respondent in the election were/are wasted and invalid; and that the 1st Petitioner who from the correct result of the election obtained the highest number of lawful votes cast in the election and met the constitutional requirements to be declared and returned as the winner of the election, ought to be declared as the winner of the Presidential election held on February 25, 2023”.
On the grounds of alleged corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, it was the case of the petitioners that INEC the 4th respondent failed to transmit results electronically as stipulated by the law.
According to Obi and LP, the deployment of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System BVAS (BVAS), Election Results Collation System (CSRVS) and the INEC Results Viewing Portal are targeting at giving the election necessary transparency and credibility.
However, they claimed that despite a court order INEC refused to give/issue those forms and refused to allow the inspection of the forms despite the order of Court.
“The Petitioners further plead that due to the 1st Respondent’s refusal and neglect to upload and transmit the result of the election in the polling units to the IReV as required by law on the day of the election, the 1st Respondent suppressed the actual scores obtained by the Petitioners.
“The suppression of the 1st Petitioner’s scores which occurred in Eighteen Thousand and Eighty-Eight (18,088) Polling Units was orchestrated by the 1st Respondent deliberately uploading unreadable and blurred Forms EC8As on the IReV; and thereby, suppressed the lawful scores obtained by the Petitioners in the said Polling Units.
“The Petitioners hereby plead and shall at trial rely on a Spread Sheet containing the Polling Units Codes and details of the aforesaid Eighteen Thousand and Eighty-Eight Polling Units, as well as the authentic results in the aforesaid Eighteen Thousand and Eighty eight Polling Units.
