See Date Supreme Court Will Hear Atiku, Obi, APM’s Appeals Against Tinubu Election Victory

See Date Supreme Court Will Hear Atiku, Obi, APM’s Appeals Against Tinubu Election Victory

The Supreme Court has set Monday, October 23rd, for the hearing of three appeals contesting the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court, which upheld the victory of President Bola Tinubu.

The hearing notice was issued by the court’s registrar, Zainab Garba.

The appellants, including Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party, Peter Obi of the Labour Party, and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), have lodged appeals urging the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the presidential election court, which validated Mr. Tinubu’s victory on September 6th.

A five-member panel of the presidential election court, presided by Haruna Tsammani, dismissed the petitioners’ claims, asserting they failed to provide substantial evidence supporting their allegations of electoral irregularities against Nigeria’s electoral commission (INEC) and Mr. Tinubu, among other charges.

Read Also BREAKING: “I, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, President Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria, Do Hereby Formally Declare That … – Tinubu Takes Decision Amid Resignation Calls Over Certificate Controversy

Background

After weeks of filing and exchanging court papers between Atiku and Mr. Tinubu, the apex court has scheduled the suit for a hearing.

During the hearing next week, the Supreme Court will unveil a seven-member panel to adjudicate and determine the case.

Atiku’s Appeal

In his appeal, Atiku’s lead lawyer, Chris Uche, based the suit on 35 grounds.

Mr. Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that the five-member panel of the presidential election court erred in their verdict.

In court filings at the Supreme Court, Mr. Uche contended that the PEPC’s judgement caused a “grave error and miscarriage of justice” in its legal reasoning by upholding Mr. Tinubu’s election as president.

In the document dated 18 September, Mr. Uche argued that the presidential election court failed to adequately evaluate his client’s evidence before reaching its conclusions.

The lawyer criticized the court’s use of “disparaging words” against Atiku, which he said “evinced bias.”

In another ground of appeal, Mr. Uche informed the Supreme Court that the lower court’s conclusions “did not represent the true picture of the grounds of his petition.”

He further argued, among other issues, that the presidential election court erred in law when it “failed to nullify the presidential election held on 25 February 2023 on the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, when by evidence before the tribunal, INEC conducted the election based on grave and gross misrepresentation contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the ‘doctrine of legitimate expectation.’

Meanwhile, Atiku filed fresh evidence at the Supreme Court regarding the academic records of Mr. Tinubu, which the former vice president obtained from Chicago State University in the United States.

Although the issue of Mr. Tinubu’s academic records was dismissed by the presidential election court, Atiku intends to revive it since he obtained the documents from the US.

In September, a US court ordered the Chicago State University to release Mr. Tinubu’s academic records to Atiku despite the president’s vehement opposition to the release of his transcripts.

Obi’s appeal

In Mr. Obi’s appeal at the Supreme Court, his lawyer, Livy Uzoukwu, filed 51 grounds challenging the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).

Mr. Uzoukwu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that the PEPC arrived at incorrect conclusions.

In one of the grounds, Mr. Uzoukwu informed the Supreme Court that the five-member panel of the PEPC led by Haruna Tsammani “erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion” when it dismissed Mr. Obi’s suit.

He criticized the PEPC’s assessment of Mr. Obi’s evidence, contending that the court wrongly ruled that Mr. Obi’s case failed to establish the polling stations where electoral malpractices occurred during the February presidential election.

The lawyer also argued that the lower court’s conclusions led to a “grave miscarriage of justice” when it held that Mr. Obi did not specify the exact number of votes he garnered at polling units where he accused INEC and Mr. Tinubu of suppressing votes.

The appellant’s lawyer urged the Supreme Court to determine whether the presidential election court erred in law when it relied on the First Schedule of the Electoral Act 2022 to expunge statements on oath made by Mr. Obi’s witnesses from the court’s records.

Some of Mr. Obi’s crucial witnesses, including a web engineer, Mpeh Ogar, and a statistician, Eric Uwadiagwu, had their testimonies dismissed by the five-member panel of the court.

Mr. Obi and Atiku separately filed petitions at the PEPC, accusing Nigeria’s electoral body, INEC, and Mr. Tinubu of electoral malpractices. They contested Mr. Tinubu’s eligibility to run for election and requested the PEPC to invalidate the election.

However, the court, in its decision, held that they failed to substantiate their allegations of electoral fraud against INEC and the president.

APM’s suit

Another political party, APM, filed the third lawsuit, alleging the improper nomination of Mr. Tinubu’s running mate and the incumbent Vice President, Kashim Shettima.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, APM’s lawyer, Chukwuma–Machukwu–Ume, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), based his client’s suit on 10 grounds.

Mr. Machukwu-Ume, also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged the apex court to nullify the verdict of the presidential election court due to its numerous legal errors.

He argued that sections 131 and 142 (1) of the 1991 Constitution are closely connected and cannot be confined to pre-election matters, as these qualifications are prerequisites for being elected into the office of President.

APM’s suit wasn’t solely based on the nomination but primarily on the assertion that President Tinubu contested the presidential election without a lawful running mate.

The party also contended that the withdrawal of Ibrahim Kabir Masari, a place-holder, and the expiration of the 14-day period allowed for changing and withdrawing deceased candidates under Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2022 rendered Mr. Tinubu’s election and return invalid.

Mr. Tinubu, INEC, and other respondents in the suits have urged the apex court to dismiss the appeals on grounds of lacking merit.

Mr. Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), stated that Atiku and Mr. Obi failed to substantiate all their allegations at the PEPC.

He contended that the court was correct in its decision affirming Mr. Tinubu’s victory.

Never Miss Any News, Join Our WhatsApp Group With This Link Below

https://chat.whatsapp.com/L6TlxYS6ozI2UuJYsfqmeS