Supreme Court Dismisses APM’s Appeal Against Tinubu

The Supreme Court, Monday, dismissed an appeal by the Allied People’s Movement (APM)seeking to disqualify President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress.   APM had asked the Supreme Court to hold that the Court of Appeal misconceived the material facts before it, when it struck out its undefended petition against Tinubu’s victory. It prayed the 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 the February 25, presidential election.  In its brief of arguments, APM, through its counsel Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume (SAN), 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 the striking out of Kabiru Masari’s name 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. The Court of Appeal had dismissed APM’s petition based on pre hearing motions filed by 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. The APM lawyer said 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. Hearing the appeal on Monday, effort by Machukwu Ume, to move the appeal was rejected by the panel, as doing so would amount to wasting of the precious time of the court. The presiding Justice, Inyang Okoro had insisted that the appeal be withdrawn since the issue had been decided.  “We have read your appeal and issues raised.   “You are not asking us to make your candidate the President if the your appeal succeeds.  “You just want to state the law and go home, without benefit. We have other appeals that are substantial and withdrawing this appeal will help reduce the workload on us.  “We have read the appeal and are unanimous that it’s a none issue, having been pronounced upon by this court” Justice Inyang Okoro said. Left with no option, the APM counsel hesitantly accepted withdrawal of the appeal. All the Respondents did not oppose the withdrawal and did not ask for cost.  Accordingly, the panel dismissed the APM appeal, same having been withdrawn.

APM Withdraws Appeal Challenging Tinubu’s Victory At Supreme Court

The Allied Peoples Movement, (APM) Monday, withdrawn the appeal instituted at the Supreme Court to nullify President Bola Tinubu’s election victory. In the appeal, the party is contesting that Tinubu’s running mate and Vice President, Kashim Shettima, was nominated twice for different positions by the All Progressives Congress, APC, in relation to the 2023 general elections. APM had in its 10-ground of appeal, maintained its position that Tinubu was not eligible to participate in the presidential poll that held on February 25. However, at the hearing,  Counsel to the party Mr. Chukwuma Machukwu Ume, SAN, withdrew the matter shortly after it was called up for hearing. A seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, berated the party for filing an appeal the appeal for trying to over labour the court. According to the panel, APM appeal is a total waste of time and amount to an academic exercise since the party only wanted the apex court to “state the law.” “If we are idle, then maybe we will state the law. If there is nothing for you to gain from an appeal, you don’t just come to court for interpretation. “If for instance that you win a case, there must be something to be gained from the victory. We have read your appeal, there is absolutely nothing in it. You are not asking for your candidate to declared winner or anything of such, all you want is for the President to be removed. “If we remove the President, then what next? There are two other appeals here that are asking for something substantial,” Justice Okoro held. Also reacting to the appeal, Justice Emmanuel Agim, noted that issues the APM raised in its appeal, was previously decided by the Supreme Court. “We are not bound to hear every appeal. What you are asking us is to overrule ourselves. Did you not read our decision on the issue of double nomination.”  Consequently, Ume, SAN, withdrew the appeal and it was accordingly struck out.

BREAKING: Court strikes out APM’s double nomination suit against Shettima, Tinubu

The Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Abuja has struck out the suit filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) accusing Vice-President Kashim Shettima of the All Progressives Congress (APC) of double nomination in the 2023 general elections.   The Chairman of the panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani, who read the lead judgement, held that an invalid nomination or double nomination did not qualify as a ground for disqualification in respect of the presidential election as provided in sections 131 and 137 of the constitution. He also held that Mr Ibrahim Masari, who was nominated as a placeholder by the APC (for the position of the Vice President), was not a necessary party to the petition because he was neither a candidate nor did he win the election. He also held that the question as to the qualification or not of any candidate for any election is a pre-election matter which is outside the jurisdiction of the PEPC. In addition, he ruled that the matter of  qualifications of candidates to contest an election is entirely an internal party matter which non-members have no locus standi to challenge.