• Thursday, June 20, 2024
businessday logo


Tribunal reserves judgement in APM’s petition against Shettima , Tinubu

PEPT October Declaration: End of Discussion or End of the Beginning?.., Is this Christmas?

The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal sitting in court of appeal Abuja on Friday, reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).

The party, in their petition marked CA/PEPC/04/2023, seeks the nullification of Tinubu’s election on the grounds of the double nomination of the Vice-Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Kashim Shettima.

The five-man panel of judges led by Justice Haruna Tsammani reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to all parties in the petition, after they adopted their written addresses.

Justice Tsammani informed that the court will deliver judgment in the petition by the APM the same day with those of the Peoples Democratic Party and the Labour Party.

It would be recalled that hearing on APM was adjourned severally to enable the petitioners access the supreme Court judgement on Kashim Shettima’s nomination and its implication on its petition.

Wole Olanipekun, counsel to Bola Tinubu and Shettima, had argued that the APM’s petition is anchored solely on the nomination of Shettima, which had already been resolved by the supreme Court.

But, GA Idiagbonya counsel to the petitioners had told the court that the Supreme Court judgement did not touch the grounds of their case. The Court subsequently adjourned the matter to July 14 for adoption of the final written address.

At the resumption of proceedings, which is the adoption of written addresses, all respondents in APM’s petition urged the court to dismiss the petition, saying it is dead on arrival.

The petitioners urged the court to allow the petitions on the ground that it was meritorious. The petitioner told the court that the apex judges did not determine the matter on the merit but simply on the issue of focus of PDP to initiate the appeal.

Lateef Fagbemi, counsel to APC said the petition ought not to have been filed in the first place because the matters canvassed had been largely addressed and decided by the Supreme Court, while INEC’s lawyer, Steve Udehi , urged the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.