The legal representatives of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and that of the five opposition political parties, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Action Alliance (AA)( and Action Peoples Party (APP), will begin fireworks today as the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, sitting at the Court of Appeal in Abuja gets set to hear petitions challenging the declaration of APC presidential candidate, Bola Tinubu as winner of the February 25 presidential election in Nigeria.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), chairman, Prof Yakubu Mahmood, had, in the early hours of March 1 declared the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential candidate as winner of the contentious presidential election.
Having received submissions from both the petitioners and defendants of the matter, including INEC, the tribunal had fixed the pre-hearing session for today, as the Court will look at other applications filed before the main hearing of the petitions.
Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) and others want Tinubu’s declaration upturned on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Electoral Act and INEC’s guidelines for the conduct of the election.
Atiku, who hinged his petition on five grounds, is seeking the conduct of a fresh election due to alleged irregularities at polling units on February 25.
The former vice president and his opposition PDP said Tinubu was declared the winner when all results and accreditation data from polling units had not been transmitted and uploaded by INEC.
Also, the Labour Party and its candidate, Peter Obi is also alleging various irregularities, insisting Tinubu and his running mate, Senator Kashim Shettima, were not qualified to contest.
The LP Presidential candidate insists that the President-elect did not win the majority of lawful votes and failed to win the constitutional 25% of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The three other political parties, Action Alliance (AA), Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and Action Peoples Party (APP) had, in their separate petitions, challenged Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the presidential election by INEC.
AA, in the petition marked CA/PEPC/01/2023, has INEC, APC, Tinubu, and Hamza Al-Mustapha as respondents.
APM, in its petition numbered CA/PEPC/04/2023, joined INEC, APC, Tinubu, Kashim Shettima, and Kabir Masari as respondents.
In the petition of the APP Tinubu, APC and INEC are the 1st to 3rd respondents, respectively, while the AA and its presidential candidate, Solomon David Okanigbuan, APM, and APP are challenging the outcome of the presidential election on the grounds of alleged substantial non-compliance with the electoral laws as well as INEC guidelines for the conduct of the election.
While the AA claimed that its candidate, Solomon-David Okanigbuan, was excluded from the presidential poll, based on which the election should be voided, the APM is contending that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election on the grounds of the alleged double nomination of his vice-presidential candidate.
It also questions Tinubu’s candidacy on the grounds of substituting the initial “placeholder”, Kabir Masari, with Shettima.
On its parts, the APP claimed that Tinubu was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the poll by virtue of the provisions of Sections 131(c) and 142 of the Constitution and Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022.
The APC has already filed its objection to the five petitions, urging the Tribunal to discountenance the complaints of the petitioners.
This is even as the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has accused the President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of plots to influence Election Petitions Tribunal judgement.
The party in a press conference held on Sunday at its headquarters, Abuja, by the National Publicity Secretary, Hon. Debo Ologunagba, said that part of the plots is to subject opposition party members to intimidation, harassment, threaten Nigerian youths and eminent personalities speaking out against APC’s planned moves to install a government that does not enjoy the mandate of majority of Nigerians as expressed at the polling units.
“The alleged planned onslaught by APC leaders on eminent Nigerians and our democratic institutions, including the Judiciary, stems from APC’s apprehensions given the weight of evidence against it as well as the continuing refusal by majority of Nigerians to accept the outcome of the flawed Presidential election.
“There are apprehensions in the public space, having regards to the reputation of certain individuals within the highest level of the APC who have demonstrated capacity and proclivity to compromise democratic institutions in our country,” PDP said.
The party recalled that it had earlier raised alarm over the comments by the APC presidential candidate, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the commissioning of some judiciary projects in Port-Harcourt Rivers State, wherein he attempted to corrupt, cultivate and patronize the Judiciary.
The party advised APC and INEC to halt further steps to hinder the ability of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to dispense justice in the matter in accordance with the law.
“More alarming are allegations in the public space of attempts by certain APC leaders to compromise the judiciary with heavy financial inducement and to orchestrate trumped-up allegations of impropriety against judicial officers.
“It is imperative to state that the reckless violation by INEC of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2022, INEC Guidelines and Manual in the 2023 Presidential election portend grave consequences to our democracy and political stability as a country.
“The only way to guarantee peace, unity and stability of our nation is to uphold the Will of the people as expressed at the Polling Units in the February 25, 2023, Presidential election and the PDP is confident in the ability of the Judiciary to discharge its Constitutional duties in this regard independently.”
The party restated its call on the Judiciary to resist and insulate itself from the alleged and reported antics of the APC in the discharge of its Constitutional duties as independent and impartial arbiter in the pending Petition before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.
It mentioned the provocative resort by the APC and its leaders to threaten Nigerians with treason for speaking out against the manipulations of the democratic processes.
“Majority of Nigerians are insisting on the review of the February 25, 2023 Presidential election because it was marred by wide-spread manipulations, open alteration of genuine election results from the Polling Units, allocation of fictitious figures to the APC and brazen violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2022 as well as INEC Manual and Guidelines by INEC itself in its declaration of a winner of the election.
“The bizarre response by INEC, which is an umpire that ought to be independent, to the Petition of the PDP and our Candidate, Atiku Abubakar, requesting for the dismissal of our Petition, is further evidence of the complicity, corruption and compromise of INEC by the APC.”
The opposition party reminded INEC and the APC that the tribunal hearing is part of the electoral process, hence the need to allow the tribunal to discharge it’s duties responsibly.
Also amidst calls for the suspension of the planned May 29 inauguration of the new administration, pending the determination of the petitions filed by aggrieved candidates and their political parties, the Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Festus Keyamo has described those calling for quick determination of election petitions are plainly ignorant and mischievous.
Keyamo said it would be impossible to amend laws and rules of court to accommodate such an idea.
There has been calls from several quarters for the suspension of the planned May 29 presidential inauguration until the Presidential Elections Petitions Tribunal decides of the petitions before it, which are challenging the declaration of the presidential candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Senator Bola Tinubu as president – elect by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Following the delay in the determination of the petitions, with few weeks to the May 29 inauguration, the Emeritus Catholic Bishop of Abuja Archdioceses, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, as many other stakeholders have called for the inauguration to be postponed until the tribunal takes its position on the numerous petitions against the declaration of Tinubu as president – elect.
Reacting to the calls, Keyamo in a post on his verified Twitter handle on Sunday, said, “Those who think by such a call they are doing the Petitioners any good, do not realise that they are, in fact doing a great harm to the cases of the Petitioners.”
He wrote, “THOSE CALLING FOR A QUICK DETERMINATION OF ELECTION PETITIONS BEFORE MAY 29TH UNDER OUR PRESENT LAWS ACTUALLY WANT TO DESTROY THE CASES OF THE PETITIONERS.
“Those calling for the determination of the Election Petitions BEFORE the swearing-in ceremonies on MAY 29th under our present electoral laws and Rules of Court and/or procedure are either plainly ignorant or crassly mischievous.
“In future, it is possible to amend our laws and rules of court to accommodate such an idea, but it is clearly IMPOSSIBLE under our present circumstances.
“Those who think by such a call they are doing the Petitioners any good, do not realise that they are, in fact doing a great harm to the cases of the Petitioners.
“It is the Petitioners that need more TIME to prove their cases and not necessarily the defendants. That is why the Petitioners are given 21 days to file and the defendants have 14 days to respond. And the Petitioners have a further 7 days to reply, making a total of 30 days as against the 14 days of the Respondents.
“It follows that in leading evidence in court/Tribunal in support of the Petitions, the Petitioners would also take more time. It is more arduous to prove an Election Petition than to defend it.
“If these characters say a single point (let’s say the FCT 25 percent storm-in-a-teacup issue) should be set down for determination immediately, would the Petitioners’ lawyers agree to withdraw and abandon all other issues raised in their Petition and proceed only with that issue?
“Will they take that risk? Ask them privately. They know better. This is because the rules of Election Petitions do not allow Petitioners to prove their cases piecemeal.
“A Petitioner cannot pursue a single point up to the Supreme Court and after losing, return to the Tribunal or Court and say he/she/it wants to now prove other aspects of the case.
“Even that single point alone CANNOT be determined by the Supreme Court BEFORE MAY 29th because of the time given by the rules for parties to file their Notices of Appeal and exchange their briefs.
“It is indeed only the Respondent that can raise a preliminary objection that can determine the Petition (that is, at the threshold). Even at that, the rules allow the Court/Tribunal to take the objection together with the Petition itself and give one judgment at the end in order to save time.
“So, this is a free advice to the advocates of pre-May 29th determination of the Election Petitions: they are doing the cases of their Principals (the Petitioners) great harm.
“They should realise that just as we say, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, we also say ‘justice rushed is justice crushed.”
 |
ReplyReply allForward
|