Champion Newspapers Limited
For a better society

Breaking : Atiku in Court as Tribunal adjourns hearing on PDP, APM petitions to May 18

53
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

CHIGOZIE IKPO, Abuja

 

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting in Abuja has adjourned the hearing on the petition filed by the Presidential Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, challenging the victory of the President-Elect, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 25 elections.

Also adjourned is the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).

The five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned the pre-hearing process after a unanimous decision by all parties in the petition.

The petition by the PDP marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023, has the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, and the APC, listed as 1st to 3rd respondents.

When the matter came up on Thursday, Counsel to PDP, Chris Uche (SAN) informed the court that “all parties have met to harmonize and streamline the vital areas or components of the pre-hearing conference.

“We have set up a team to look at documents and agree on them in order to eliminate objections while tendering from the bar or during the hearing.

“We intend to do that between Monday and Tuesday and then prepare a schedule of documents to facilitate the hearing,” he said

Uche told the court that they are yet to get a response from the respondents to their motion filed on May 7, seeing the Live broadcast of the proceedings of the tribunal.

He also said they have filed their issues for trial on May 11, and served all the parties, adding that they have in turn received four motions, two each from the 1st and 3rd respondents.

He told the court that they have unanimously agreed to propose Thursday, May 18 as the next adjournment date subject to the convenience of the Court.

  1. B. Mahmood (SAN) representing INEC agreed with the submissions of Uche on the proposed adjournment date to enable them to harmonize documents.

He also told the court that they have filed two applications on April 19 and May 9 respectively asking the court to strike out some paragraphs of the petition.

On the motion of Live-streaming, Uche said they have received the application and will be filing a response before the end of the day.

Counsel to Tinubu, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) told the court that they agreed on Thursday, as the adjournment date, adding that they have filed an application on May 10 and they will serve the petitioners their responses.

Regarding the motion for a live broadcast of the proceedings, Olanipekun told the court that they were served on Tuesday and will respond to it latest by Monday.

Charles Edosomwan (SAN) representing APC confirmed that they are all in agreement for the adjournment date and are committed to full cooperation.

He also told the court that they filed issues for determination on May 10 and clarified that three applications have been served on the petitioner rather than two as claimed by Mr. Uche.

On the motion for live streaming of the proceedings, Edosomwan said they will respond by Monday.

Justice Tsammani commended the various parties for the progress made and adjourned till May 19 for the continuation of the pre-hearing process.

On the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) O. O Aweda, representing the party told the court that all parties have met and agreed to harmonize documents ahead of the next adjourned date.

He told the court that they have agreed to return to court on Thursday, May 18 for continuation of the pre-hearing process.

Other parties in the petition agreed to the submissions of Aweda on the proposed date for adjournment and identified their processes and filed issues for determination.

Justice Tsammani having listened to all the parties adjourned till May 18 for continuation of pre-hearing.

The APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, contended that the withdrawal of Mr. Kabir Masari who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy given Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was 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 at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

According to the petitioner, 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 APM also said that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that his subsequent withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.

It, therefore, prayed the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC as of February 25 when the election was conducted by INEC having violated the provisions of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

The party also asked the court for an “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”.

Likewise, an order to set aside the Certificate of Return was issued to the President-elect by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

The APC had on May 8, filed a preliminary objection to challenge the competence of the petition which it urged the court to dismiss in its entirety for lacking in merit.

Similarly, both Tinubu and Shettima, who were cited as the 3rd and 4th Respondents, respectively, asked the court to either strike out or dismiss the petition.

Tinubu stressed that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable cause of action to warrant the nullification of his election victory.

 

For a better society

—————————————————————–

Kindly follow us across all our social media platforms to stay up-to-date with the latest news and happenings in Nigeria and across the globe.

Facebook – https://facebook.com/championnewsonline

Instagram – https://instagram.com/championnewsonline

Twitter– @championnewsng

Comments are closed.