The All Progressives Congress (APC) has asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting in Abuja to dismiss the petitions b...
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting in Abuja to dismiss the petitions by three political parties against the return of its candidate, Bola Tinubu, as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.
The request is among others, the core relief in the replies by the APC to the petitions by the Action Alliance (AA), Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and the Action Peoples Party (APP).
Thomas Ojo, a member of the Lateef Fagbemi-led APC legal team filed the replies to the secretariat of the PEPC in Abuja on Sunday.
The APC faulted the claim by the AA that its presidential candidate, Hamza Al-Mustapha, was excluded from the February 25 election by Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC).
Al-Mustapha, a former Chief Security Officer to the late Gen. Sani Abacha, was produced by a faction of the AA led by Kenneth Udeze.
Another faction led by Adekunle Omo-Aje had consistently said that Solomon Okanigbuan was its candidate and not Al-Mustapha.
Omo-Aje claimed he was the actual national chairman of the AA and that INEC failed to accept the list of the candidate he sent before the election.
In its objection to the AA petition, the APC stated that contrary to AA’s claim, Tinubu “was duly elected and returned as the president-elect, having won the majority of lawful votes cast in the said election devoid of corrupt practices or vices and in substantial compliance with the provisions of Electoral Act 2022 (as amended). “
It posited that the ground on which the AA brought its petition “is not meritorious and facts in support of same are not availing to validate the petitioners’ claims and/or purported right to present the instant petition."
The APC added that Okanigbuan (listed as the 2nd petitioner “is not the 1st petitioner’s (AA’s) validly nominated and sponsored candidate to contest the presidential election held on February 25, 2023.
The APC also argued that contrary to AA’s claim, INEC which listed as the 1st respondent, did not unlawfully exclude Okanigbuan’s name because he was never the lawfully nominated and sponsored candidate of the petitioner.
It said AA which is the petitioner, did not submit his name to INEC as its candidate for the election.
It added that there was no evidence that the AA conducted a valid primary from which Okanigbuan emerged as a candidate, noting that Al-Mustapha was recognised by INEC as a candidate.
The APC stated that Okanigbuan was not nominated and sponsored by the AA as its candidate to contest the presidential elections, adding the party “was not and could not have been excluded from the election as it participated in the presidential election with the 4th respondent (Al-Mustapha) as its candidate” who scored 14,542 votes.
In its notice of preliminary objection, the APC questioned the competence of the petition, noting that it was based solely on pre-election issues.
It said: “For an election petition to be competent, it must complain against the return and/or election of the winner of the disputed election.
“The instant petition is neither challenging and/or questioning the election of the 2nd and/or 3rd respondent (APC/Tinubu).”
“The petition as presently constituted amounts to a pre-election matter of nomination and sponsorship of candidates.
"The crux of the petition being the nomination and sponsorship of the 1st petitioner’s candidate is statute-barred having not been commenced within the mandatory 14 days provided for under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999;
“Issues of nomination, sponsorship and exclusion of candidates for an election are issues that precede the conduct of an election and are preelection matters that cannot be raised or canvased before an election tribunal.
“Facts in support of the petition speak to intra-party issues, pre-election disputes and administrative actions of INEC triable by Federal High Court under Section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered by the 4th Alteration Act and outside the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal being a Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.”
In urging the court to dismiss the petition by the APM, the APC queried the legal capacity of the party in challenging the mode it adopted in nominating its candidate.
It also faulted the competence of the petition in view of the exclusion of its presidential candidate as a party to the petition’.
The APM is contending in its petition that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election on the grounds of the alleged double nomination of his vice presidential candidate.
It is also questioning Tinubu’s candidacy on the grounds of the substitution of the initial placeholder, Kabir Masari with Kashim Shettima.
The APC argued that since the APM was not a member of the party, it did not know how it becomes the petitioner’s business and how it nominates its candidates.
“The petitioner does not fall under the category of persons that can challenge the internal working operation of the 2nd respondent (APC) regarding the nomination and sponsorship of the 2nd respondent’s candidates for the election.”
The APC equally faulted the competence of the petition by the APP, arguing that the grounds on which it was founded are not sustainable.
It described the petition as frivolous and an attempt to waste the court’s time.
.
No comments