AKINWALE ABOLUWADE
The case by the Allied Peoples Movement, seeking to nullify President Bola Tinubu’s election has been dismissed by the Presidential Election Petition Court sitting in Abuja on the ground of incompetency.
Petition by the APM, the tribunal said, contained pre-election matters that could only be determined by the Federal High Court.
Justice Haruna Tsammani, who chaired the panel, upheld preliminary objections that all the respondents raised to challenge the competence of the petition.
Tsammani stated that the petition centering on the qualification or otherwise of President Tinubu to contest the February 25 presidential election, should have been taken to court within 14 days of Tinubu’s nomination by his party, the All Progressives Congress.
The tribunal held that since the APM failed to challenge President Tinubu’s nomination within the constitutionally allowed period, its case became statute barred.
He further stressed that the APM, lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s nomination since the cause of action bordered on a pre-election matter.
According to Tsammani, the Supreme Court had earlier decided that a political party does not have the right to challenge a nomination that was made by another political party.
He explained that Section 131 and 237 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, made provisions for the qualification or disqualification of candidates in an election, noting that the main grouse of the APM was on the alleged invalid nomination of Tinubu’s running mate, Kashim Shettima.
Tsammani stated, “It is clear that the claim of non qualification of the the 3rd Respondent (Tinubu) centered on alleged invalid nomination of the 4th Respondent (Shettima). It is a pre-election matter.”
Except as provided for in the constitution, he held that Section 84(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, stipulated that political parties should not impose qualification criteria on a candidate.
The court stated that sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 185 and 187 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, settled the issue of qualification and nomination of a candidate for an election.
Going by sections 131 and 137 of the Constitution, the qualification of a candidate could no longer be challenged where an election had been conducted and result declared.
The court said that no other law can disqualify a candidate for an election where the Constitution has qualified such a candidate, except the constitution itself.
According to the court, the issue of double nomination canvassed by the APM, is not a legally cognizable ground for disqualification.
It also held that it found no reason why Mr. Ibrahim Masari was cited as the 5th Respondent in the petition since he would not in any way be affected by the outcome of the case, and consequently, struck out his name from the petition.
Recall that the APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, argued 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 APM argued that there was about three weeks gap between the period that Masari, 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 Kashim Shettima.
It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.
The petitioner said that 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.”
The party argued that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, adding that his withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.
The party 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 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 and an order to set aside the Certificate of Return that was issued to President Tinubu by INEC, were rejected by the court.
