By Vivian Okejeme Abuja
The Allied Peoples Movement (APM) has asked the Supreme Court to hold that Court of Appeal misconceived the material facts before it when it struck out its undefended petition against Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s victory.
It prayed the apex court to hold that the withdrawal of Kabiru Masari from the race by operation of law amounted to automatic withdrawal and invalidation of the candidate of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the presidential candidate of All Progressive Congress in February 25 election.
The party said in its brief of arguments settled by its counsel Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume (SAN) filed at Supreme Court on Monday evening in support of its appeal that the Court of Appeal wrongly and peremptorily struck out the petition. It therefore prayed the apex court to set aside the decision of the lower court.
APM also said that the striking out of the 5th respondents Kabiru Masari from its petition and consequent dismissal of the petition on 6th September 2023 was in error , as Masari was a necessary party to the dispute.
Court of Appeal had dismissed APM petition based on pre hearing motions filed INEC , APC and Shettima but only INEC tendered a document during the hearing while APC , Tinubu and Shettima and INEC did not call any witness.
According to APM , “the grounds upon which it’s petition was predicated is that the 3rd respondent (Tinubu) was at the time of the election (February 25 2023) not qualified to contest the election in line with Section 134(1)(a) of the electoral Act, 2022.
The party said it clearly stated in its paragraph 16 and 17 of the petition that it was against 3rd and 4th respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) respectively and grounded on the provisions of Section 131 and 142 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Section 35 of the Electoral Act,2022.
But the Court of Appeal misconceived the material facts and case of the appellant and wrongly Progressed to determine issues not contemplated by the appellant’s petition and erroneously dismissed the petition.
Recall that Court of Appeal in its judgement had said: ” As a fall out to my findings above , I hold the firm view that the issue of nomination or sponsorship of the 4th respondent being a pre- election matter ought to have been ventilated by the petitioner before the Federal High Court as this Court has no original jurisdiction to delve the matter.”
The Court of Appeal also said: “Even if ,this court has such jurisdiction,the cause of action being on a pre-election matter is status barred by virtue of Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)”
The appellant stated that the material facts of it case and the crux of its petition are simple to understand and it is that on the 25th February 2023 the 1st Respondent (the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)conducted an election for the office of President of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
As a registered political party it participated and contested through its sponsored candidate.
The second respondent (All Progressive Congress)( APC) purportedly sponsored the 3rd and 4th respondents (Tinubu ) and (Shettima) respectively who at the end of the election (INEC) declared as President and Vice President respectively.
It stated that earlier before the election, Tinubu had constitutionally nominated 5th respondents (Aminu Masari ) as his Vice Presidential candidate .But Masari on 24/6/2022 withdrew as candidate while on 15/7/2022 precisely 23 days after Masari withdrawal, before Tinubu unlawfully nominated the 4th respondent (Shettima ) and purportedly forwarded his name to INEC as replacement of Masari.
The party said that the above facts buttressed it’s claim that Court of Appeal abdicated it’s powers to determine the petition.
It said that it’s petition was filed praying the Court of Appeal to determine the validity or otherwise of the declaration of Tinubu and Shettima as winner of the election when they violated the provisions of Section 142(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Therefore , the party prayed the apex court to hold that Masari having withdrawn and for there to be a validly nominated running mate to Tinubu such nomination ought to be done within a window period of 14 days from the time of withdrawal as contemplated under Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2022.
It added that the failure of APC , Tinubu and Shettima to comply to the mandatory requirements of chapter 6 of the Constitution of the Federal of Nigeria made INEC declaration invalid and liable to be held void by the apex court.
Never miss a moment! Get the stories shaping Nigeria, delivered straight to your phone. Follow Peoplesdaily Newspaper on WhatsApp for breaking news, exclusive reports, and the headlines everyone will be talking about, before anyone else.
