The Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal
(PEPT) Monday in Abuja adjourned the petitions of the Action Peoples Party (APP) and the Labour Party (LP) to Wednesday, May 10, 2023.
The duo are challenging the emergence of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC) as winner of the February 25 presidential election.
This followed the withdrawal and consequent dismissal of the petition by the Action Alliance (AA), after which the APP’s petition was called up and the parties announced appearances.
The APP national legal adviser, Peter Abang, announced his appearance for the party, while Obed Agu stood in as the party’s legal representative.
In the petition marked CA/ABJ/PEPC/02/2022, the APP alleged irregularities, including alleged mutilation of election results, during the presidential poll.
It also challenged Tinubu’s victory on the grounds that “the first respondent was not qualified to stand for the said election having knowingly supplied false information”, including the alleged falsification of age and educational qualifications.
“The first respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election,” the APP, which was the only applicant, added.
The party also alleged all manners of corruption on the part of the staffers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), including voter inducement, which, it said, affected the outcome of the elections, which according the applicant was characterised by ‘monumental vote buying’.
“The over voting took place under the watchful eyes of agents of the third respondent,” the APP further claimed.
Tinubu, APC team
For the respondents, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, announced appearance for Tinubu, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, for the APC and Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN for INEC.
Making his submission, Fagbemi told the PEPT of his preliminary objection to the APP’s petition, while INEC’s counsel told the court of his client’s pending applications in response to the APP’s petition, consequent upon which the court adjourned the APP’s petition.
And upon adjournment, the petition by the LP and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, were called up.
Parties announced their appearances after Obi, who is the first petitioner in the case, introduced himself.
Like APP, the LP and its presidential candidate were challenging the outcome of the presidential poll on the grounds that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the elections “for an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking imposed by the United States District Court.”
Similarly, they cited non-compliance with the electoral laws as well as the guidelines of INEC.
LP’s National Publicity Secretary, Obiora Ifoh, appeared as LP’s representative; May Agbamuche-Mbu appeared on behalf of INEC; Plateau state Governor Simon Lalong appeared for the APC.
Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, appeared for Obi, while Mahmoud was the counsel for the electoral commission.
Like in the APP’s petition, Olanipekun and Fagbemi appeared for Tinubu and the vice president-elect, Kashim Shettima, and the APC respectively.
Obi’s counsel, Uzoukwu, said they had filed their answers to the questions on April 22, 2023.
“We adopt and rely on them in this pretrial proceedings,” he said.
Atiku, PDP on live broadcast
Meanwhile, the presidential candidate of the PDP in the presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar has approached the tribunal hearing his case against the outcome of the February 25 presidential polls, for an order allowing live broadcast of the day to day proceedings regarding his petition.
Atiku and the PDP in an application dated May 5, is specifically praying the tribunal for “An order directing the Court’s Registry and the parties on modalities for admission of Media Practitioners and their Equipment into the courtroom.”
The application filed on their behalf by their team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, is predicated amongst other grounds that: “The matter before the Honourable Court is a dispute over the outcome of the presidential election held on 25th February, 2023, a matter of national concern and public interest, involving citizens and voters in the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, who voted and participated in the said election; and the international community as regards the workings of Nigeria’s Electoral Process.
“An integral part of the constitutional duty of the court to hold proceedings in public is discretion to allow public access to proceedings either physically or by electronic means.
“With the huge and tremendous technological advances and developments in Nigeria and beyond, including the current trend by this Honourable court towards embracing electronic procedures, virtual hearing and electronic filing, a departure from the rules to allow a regulated televising of the proceedings in this matter is in consonance with the maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.”
