•Throws out PDP candidate’s case against Vice-President-elect’s alleged double nomination
•Deplores plaintiff’s resort to use of social media to bully SC justices
•Court dismisses suit challenging Tinubu’s age, citizenship; fines petitioners N16m
•Atiku says judgment no setback to his case at PEPC.
The Supreme Court yesterday hit out at the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for seeking the disqualification of Vice-President-elect Kashim Shettima over alleged double nomination in the run-up to the last elections.
The apex court dismissed an appeal by the PDP, which would have truncated Monday’s inauguration of President-elect Bola Tinubu, as not only lacking merit but also frivolous.
A separate suit filed at the Federal High Court Abuja by three individuals challenging Tinubu’s age and citizenship was similarly thrown out by the court.
The Supreme Court upheld the January 13, 2023 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja and the March 24, 2023 ruling of the Court of Appeal on the case in which the PDP sought Shettima’s disqualification on the grounds that he “knowingly allowed himself to be nominated in two constituencies as Senator Borno Central District and as Vice Presidential candidate” of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
It distinguished the PDP case from that of Ugwumba Uche Nwosu Vs Action Peoples Party (APP) and others in which the apex court voided Nwosu’s nomination as the governorship candidate of two political parties in Imo State.
It said while there was evidence that Nwosu knowingly held himself out as a candidate of two political parties, there was no evidence that Shettma still remained APC senatorial candidate after his nomination was communicated to INEC on July 15.
In the lead judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Adamu Jauro held that the PDP lacked the locus standi to challenge the process adopted by another party in nominating its candidates.
According to him, Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution, which the PDP relied on in bringing the case, did not clothe it with the right to challenge the decisions and activities of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in relation to other political parties.
He said: “The application of Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution does not extend to allowing a political party poke its eyes into the affairs of other political parties. The position of the law has always been that no political party can challenge the nomination of the candidate of another political party.
“The position did not change with Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution.
Read Also: PEPC: Over 249 witnesses to testify in Atiku, Obi’s petitions
No matter how pained or disgruntled a political party is with the way and manner that another political party is conducting or has conducted its affairs concerning the nomination of its candidates or aspirants for any position, it must keep mum and be an onlooker as it lacked the locus standi to challenge such nomination.”
Describing the PDP as a busy body and meddlesome interloper, Justice Jauro declared that Shettima was not guilty of any double nomination as alleged because there was evidence that he resigned as senatorial candidate on July 6 before he was nominated as vice presidential candidate on July 14.
He faulted the claim by the appellant that the trial court made findings in relation to whether or not there was actually double nomination in relation to Shettima. He noted that as against the appellant’s claim, the two lower courts did not determine the case on the merit.
Justice Jauro affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo on January 13, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal in its judgment on March 25 in the suit marked: CA/ABJ/CV/108/2023. He said the PDP case was fraught with irredeemable maladies and was without merit.
Justice John Okoro, in his own judgment, said: “For public policy sake, I must state that indeed the 4th Respondent withdrew from the nomination for Borno Central District on the 6th of July, 2022 exhibited as Exhibit APC 1 on page 58 of the record of Appeal.
“The political party sent to the INEC same 6th of July 2022 the notice of withdrawal. The political party further sent on the 10th of July, 2022 notification of dates for the conduct of fresh primaries for the senatorial district and the latter letter exhibit APC 2 on page 59 of the record carried the reference of Exhibit APC 1. That is as at the 6th of July, 2022, there was no longer nomination of the 4th Respondent for Borno Central District and there could not have been double nomination on the 14th of July, 2022.”
Justice Okoro took exception to what he called the use of social media by the PDP to “terrorise and bully the Justices of the Supreme Court”.
He branded the action as appalling and unprofessional.
On her part, Justice Amina Augie, said the PDP itself was a beneficiary of what it accused the APC of doing when, in 1999, Alhaji Atiku Abubakr was picked as presidential running mate by Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, soon after he (Atiku) had won election as governor of Adamawa State.
She said: “In that case, INEC intended to conduct by-election and this Court said no. Boni Haruna became Governor of Adamawa State on that account.”
The court awarded a cost of N2 million against the PDP and in favour of the respondents — INEC, APC, Tinubu and Shettima.
Read Also: We’ll hit the ground running, Shettima assures
Other members of the panel were Justices Helen Ogunwumiju and Emmanuel Agim.
Ruling no setback to my quest for justice, says Atiku
Reacting to the judgment, the PDP flag bearer insisted that nothing had changed.
“The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the case of the @OfficialPDPNig is not a setback to my quest for justice,” he said on his Twitter handle @atiku.
He added: “Our legal team are (sic) primed to robustly prove that the election of February 25 was fraudulent, did not comply with the constitutional requirements and the electoral guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission, @inecnigeria, and that the announced winner was not even qualified to contest the poll.
“The battle for democracy and the enthronement of a new order to spur growth and development in Nigeria is one to which I have committed my all and for which I am not ready to walk away at this point when our nation is at crossroads (sic).
“We know that sooner than later, our esteemed Justices will make the pronouncement that will serve as a befitting requiem for mandate bandits.
“I urge my supporters to exercise patience and conduct themselves peaceably as we diligently conduct our litigation at the Presidential Election Tribunal Court.”
FHC awards N17m costs against three Abuja residents, lawyer seeking Tinubu’s disqualification
In a separate ruling yesterday, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja awarded N17million costs against Praise Ilemona Isaiah, Pastor Paul Isaac Audu and Anongu Moses, who had approached the court challenging Tinubu’s age and citizenship.
Their lawyer was asked to pay N2 million as costs.
Justice Omotosho held that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to file the suit, adding that the court could not exercise jurisdiction to hear it because it related to a presidential election.
The judge held that the plaintiffs’ claim that they are Nigerians who voted in the last presidential election could not clothe them with the right to file the suit, noting that Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2022 provides that it is only aspirants that can question the validity of information supplied by Tinubu to INEC.
The plaintiffs had prayed the court to restrain Tinubu from being inaugurated on the grounds that he (Tinubu) allegedly supplied false information to INEC about his age and citizenship status.
They claimed he lied about his age and that he holds dual citizenship (of Nigeria and Guinea).
Justice Omotosho added: “The applicants/plaintiffs have no leg to stand on. Being a voter did not clothe the applicants with the right to challenge the nomination of a candidate of another party.
“If voters are allowed to bring cases like this, the court will be flooded and bugged down with such frivolous suits.”
In declining jurisdiction to hear the suit, Justice Omotosho held that the proper forum for such a case is the Court of Appeal, which possesses the jurisdiction to determine dispute about whether or not a person was validly elected as a president.
The judge said the case cannot be categorised as a pre-election matter over which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction, because it was filed after the election and it is targeted at stopping Tinubu from being inaugurated.
After dismissing the suit, Justice Omotosho ordered the three plaintiffs to pay Tinubu a cost of N10m; N5m to APC and for the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Daniel Elomah, to pay both Tinubu and the APC N1m each from his pocket.