In a recent judgment, the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja has ruled to dismiss the case filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) aimed at nullifying the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The court found the issues raised by APM in its petition to be incompetent, stating that they pertained to pre-election matters that fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Chairman of the panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani, delivered the ruling, upholding preliminary objections raised by all the Respondents challenging the competence of APM’s petition.
Justice Tsammani emphasized that since APM’s petition centered on President Tinubu’s qualification to contest the presidential election held on February 25, the party should have taken legal action within 14 days of Tinubu’s nomination by the All Progressives Congress (APC). Failure to do so, he argued, meant that APM lacked the legal standing to challenge Tinubu’s nomination.
Furthermore, Justice Tsammani cited a previous decision by the Supreme Court, stating that a political party cannot challenge the nomination made by another political party.
Sections 131 and 237 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, were noted as providing the framework for candidate qualifications and disqualifications in elections.
The central issue of APM’s petition concerned the alleged invalid nomination of Tinubu’s running mate, Kashim Shettima. Justice Tsammani clarified that this issue constituted a pre-election matter, emphasizing that the Electoral Act of 2022 (section 84(3)) stipulated that political parties should not impose qualification criteria on a candidate unless specified in the constitution.
Sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 185, and 187 of the 1999 Constitution were cited as definitive regarding candidate qualifications and nominations. The court further held that once an election had been conducted, and the result declared, a candidate’s qualification could no longer be challenged based on sections 131 and 137 of the Constitution.
The court concluded that APM’s failure to challenge President Tinubu’s nomination within the constitutionally allowed period rendered their case statute-barred.
It stressed that, when the Constitution qualifies a candidate for an election, no other law can disqualify that candidate except the Constitution itself.
Regarding APM’s argument about the double nomination, the court declared it legally inconsequential. Additionally, the court found no valid reason for including Mr. Ibrahim Masari as the 5th Respondent in the petition, as his interests would not be affected by the outcome of the case, leading to the removal of his name from the petition.
APM had contended that the withdrawal of Mr. Masari, initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy under Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
They argued that the time gap between Masari’s intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his nomination, and Tinubu’s nomination of Senator Kashim Shettima as his replacement had implications for Tinubu’s eligibility.
In their petition, APM sought the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC on February 25, alleging violations of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.
They also requested the court to nullify all the votes scored by Tinubu in the presidential election and set aside the Certificate of Return issued to the President by INEC. These reliefs were, however, rejected by the court in its recent judgment.
