Tribunal Hears APM’s Petition Against Tinubu on Tuesday Despite S’Court judgement

The petition of Allied People’s Movement (APM) will be heard by Presidential Election Petition Court (PREPEC) despite the judgment of the Supreme Court which is believed to have resolved issues raised by the petitioners.

The PREPEC had adjourned hearing in the APM’s petition pending the availability of the said judgment.

President Bola Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), had sought to use a Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26, 2023 to terminate the APM’S petition.

He had on May 30, informed the court of a judgment of the Supreme Court, which according to him, appeared to have resolved the case of the APM.

“We are aware that the Supreme Court gave a decision on this same matter in the yet-to-be-reported judgment SC/CV/501/20223 and the parties involved were Peoples Democratic Party versus INEC and three others where the apex court resolved all the issues,” he submitted.

Responding, APM’s counsel, Shehu Abubakar, then requested for a short time to enable the petitioners avail themselves of the judgment so as to make informed decision.

However, at the next adjourned date of June 2, the said judgment was not available, thereby forcing another adjournment to June 9 and again to June 19.

When the matter came up on Monday, APM’s lawyer, Mr Gideon Idiagbonmian, told the court that the petitioners have access to the said judgment, adding that they are set to call their only witness in the suit, but because of some observations would be asking for a short adjournment.

The adjournment, he said, would enable them obtain a vital document from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which has been missing in the handover file from the previous lawyer.

The lawyer explained that after going through the said judgment, they came to the conclusion that there is life in the petition and urged the court to allow them call in their witness to prove their petition.

However, Olanipekun raised an objection to the hearing of the petition on the grounds that the sole issue raised in the petition of the APM had been resolved by the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on May 26, 2023.

Other respondents aligned themselves with Olanipekun’s position in urging the court not to entertain the petition any further.

Responding, the presiding justice of the court, Justice Haruna Tsammani, disagreed with the respondents and held that the party cannot be shut out in the face of fair hearing.

The court subsequently fixed June 21 for hearing of the petition.

The APM is one of the three political parties challenging the declaration of President Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.

The APM’s petition is anchored on the claims that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the February 25 presidential election on the grounds of alleged double nomination of his vice-presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, three presiding officers of INEC Monday maintained that among the three elections held simultaneously on February 25, it was only the results of the presidential poll that they could not transmit through the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines to the INEC’s Results Viewing (IReV) Portals.

According to them, while the results of the Senate and the House of Representatives were transmitted seamlessly, that of the president was not due to some technical hitches.

The three witnesses — Janet Nuhu Turaki, Christopher Bulus Ardo and Victoria Sani — who served as INEC’S presiding officers at Yobe, Bauchi and Katsina States respectfully, were subpoenaed by the court on the instance of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and the PDP.

In her evidence, Turaki disclosed that the accreditation of voters was successful but that the process became frustrating at the point of uploading of the presidential election results.

She emphasized that while results of the National Assembly election sailed through smoothly, that of the presidential poll failed and refused to work throughout the day.

The witness however informed the court that the collated results in the forms EC8A were signed by the parties agents and herself as INEC’S presiding officer.

In his own evidence, Ardo told the court that he felt unfulfilled because he could not transmit the presidential election results as required by law.

Also testifying, Sani said she could not remember the candidate that won the presidential poll in Katsina State but insisted that all did not end well due to inability to transmit the presidential poll results.

Hearing continues Tuesday.