President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima have argued that the case by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) challenging Shettima’s nomination to contest the last presidential election was a mere waste of the time of the court.
The APM had, in its petition before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), claimed that Shettima violated the province of the Electoral Act on the grounds that he allegedly had double nominations as candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for Borno Central Senatorial District and as vice presidential candidate.
It prayed the court to among others, void the joint presidential ticket of Tinubu and Shettima, claiming that the Vice President’s allegedly irregular nomination has affected the competence of the joint ticket.
In its judgment on September 6, the PEPC dismissed the petition for being without merit and held among others, that the issue of nomination was not only an internal affair of a party, it was a pre-election issue over which it lacked jurisdiction.
The PEPC also held that APM, not being a member of the APC, the party on whose platform both Tinubu and Shettima contested the election, lacked the locus standi to query Shettima’s nomination.
It further held that the question raised by the APM in its petition, about whether or not Shettima had double nominations, was resolved by the Supreme Court in SC/CV/502/2023 – Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 3 others in a judgment delivered on May 26, 2023.
Tinubu and Shettima, in their joint respondents’ brief filed in APM’s appeal before the Supreme Court, urged the apex court to affirm the decision by the PEPC, which relied on the apex court’s September 26 judgment in the case by the PDP against INEC and 3 others.
The joint respondents’ brief was filed by their team of lawyers, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).
They noted that: “Exhibit XI is the judgment of this honourable court earlier referred to in this brief and it emanated from the case in FHC/ABJ/CS/1734/2022.
“The said matter challenged the qualification of the 3rd respondent (Tinubu) to contest the presidential election on account of the claim that his associate (the 4th respondent – Shettima) was invalidly nominated, as according to the plaintiff, the 4th respondent had double nominations in presumed contravention of the provision of section 35 of the
Electoral Act, 2022.
“The position failed all through to the Supreme Court, where this court made very instructive pronouncements on the subject matter of the complaint.
“Instructively, the petition leading to this appeal before this honourable court (APM’s petition), is only but a rehash of the case as contained in FHC/ABJ/CS/1734/2022, which culminated in the judgment in Exhibit XI.”
Tinubu and Shettima, listed as the 3rd and 4th respondents in the appeal, argued that, as against the appellant’s claim, the Vice President was validly nominated as he lawfully withdrew from his earlier nomination as a senatorial candidate.
“As eloquently expressed in the decision of this honourable court above reproduced, it is extremely immaterial that the withdrawal was communicated to INEC on 15th July 2022, insofar as the said communication occurs not later than 90 days before the election.
“The appellant’s misconception, of course, proceeded from the premise that the withdrawal was incomplete until the same is communicated to INEC.
“Having, therefore, established in consonance with the Electoral Act and the prevailing decision of this court that the appellant is grossly wrong in its hypothesis, it invariably follows that the 4th respondent’s subsequent nomination as a vice-presidential candidate by the 3rd respondent on or about 14th July 2022, does not suffer from any factual or legal impediment or malady, whatsoever.
“Same is in strict adherence with the provision of section 142(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and we urge the court to so hold.”
Tinubu and Shettima faulted the case presented before the Supreme Court by the appellant, which they noted was a departure from what they argued before the PEPC.
“From the afore-quoted lines of the appellant’s brief, its confusion, with respect, has been brought into the fore, as it mixes pleadings with facts and vice-versa, by wrongly assuming that amorphous pleadings will translate to evidence.
“The entire brief itself is a departure from the appellant’s presentation at the lower court. Yet, the position of our law remains that an appeal is a continuation of trial.”
They added: “At the risk of sounding repetitive, this appeal ought not to have been filed at all.
“Assuming the petition at the lower court was filed out of human error or inadvertence, prudence demanded its immediate withdrawal after sighting the judgment of the Supreme Court which settled the sole issue contained herein, assuming any triable issue is therein contained.
“Further, after the judgment of the lower court, which was very benevolent to the appellant, a higher degree of prudence demanded that this appeal should not have been filed, even under compulsion.
“Applying the language of Okoro, JSC, in PDP v. INEC supra, the appellant has only succeeded in wasting the scarce precious judicial time of this honourable court.
“On the strength of the foregoing, we respectfully urge this honourable court to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit and substance.
“Additionally, and as earlier demonstrated in this brief, this appeal constitutes a crass abuse of the processes of this honourable court, and we urge the court to also dismiss the appeal on this score.”
In further praying for the court to affirm the decision of the PEPC, Tinubu and Shettima gave a summary of the evidence led by the appellant which informed why the lower court rejected the petition.
“The appellant (as petitioner before the lower court) called a single witness, Aisha Abubakar, who dealt very catastrophic blows to the petitioner’s/appellant’s case, through her evidence.
‘Under cross-examination, this witness admitted that not being a staff of INEC, she was not in a place to know when the notice of substitution was submitted for the Borno Central Senatorial District election.
“This point exposes the witness’ limited or total lack of knowledge of the facts of the case she claimed to be making, and by the decision of this court in Emoga v. State (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 25 at 34, it impacted on her overall credibility and further demonstrated why the lower court rightly did not take her depositions seriously.
“In any event, she also confirmed that she is only the Assistant Welfare Officer of the appellant and not a member of the APC, which again, exposes the meddlesomeness in the appellant’s charade before the court.
“Interestingly, she admitted knowledge of the decision of the Supreme Court in SC/CV/501/2023 – Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) v. Independent National Electoral Commission & 3 others, delivered on 26th May, 2023, which was tendered through her and admitted as Exhibit XI.
“Not done yet, the witness also read very critical portions of the said Exhibit XI, which made very damaging remarks about the appeal, and by extension, the petition, which for all intents and purposes, is a rehash of the case which led to that appeal.
“Flowing from the foregoing, the lower court had no other option or alternative than to dismiss the very frivolous petition.
“But, in doing so, the lower court still painstakingly and meticulously considered the entire petition, holding that it was lacking in merit and substance, and concluding that it was bound by the decision of this court afore-stated.”
