+Why The Judges Sanctioned ATIKU & The PDP
The entire country was thrown into a state of panic last Monday 22nd, May, when news filtered in that that the Supreme Court was set to deliver it’s final hearing on a case filed by the PDP seeking the disqualification of the President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as a candidate in the last presidential election. The immediate implication of this is that the inauguration and swearing-in of the winner, Bola Tinubu, would be called off. There was panic everywhere. Those who had no idea such case existed began to ask questions, seeking to know what the worst possible outcome of the case could be and it’s consequences on the swearing-in of the incoming Tinubu administration. And the consequence may have been grave. For most of the teeming supporters of the Jagaban, this was like a bad whirlwind that had the potential to throw spanners into the works of the incoming administration whose oath taking was expected to hold May 29.
It was with bated breaths that Nigerians waited for the ruling of the Supreme Court last Friday. When the news finally broke that the Supreme Court had dismissed the case for lacking merit, wild jubilation rent the air in the various camps of the President-elect and within the country. The suit, which alleged the inappropriate nomination of Tinubu’s running mate for the February 2023 presidential election, Kashim Shettima, impliedly sought to stop the President-elect from being sworn in as president on 29 May.
A five-man panel of Jury led by Inyang Okoro dismissed the suit unanimously on Friday.
Adamu Jauro, a member of the panel who delivered the lead judgement, held that the PDP lacked the legal right to file a suit on an internal affair of APC.
“It should be noted that no political party can challenge the nomination of another political party. “A political party lacks the right to challenge the activities of INEC on account of the nomination of another political party’s candidate.
“No court has the jurisdiction to entertain such a suit by another party,” the court held.
The court said PDP failed to show any harm it suffered because of Shettima’s alleged double nomination.
Agreeing with the Court of Appeal’s earlier judgement dismissing the suit, Mr Jauro said, “I am in complete agreement with the Appeal Court that the PDP lacks the right to file this suit.
The judge added: “It is frivolous and bound to fail fraught with manifest malady. It has been a waste of precious time and judicial energy. “Counsel should do better to advise their clients to desist from suit of such frivolous matters.
“The appeal is grossly lacking in merit and it is hereby dismissed.”
The court awarded the cost of N2 million against PDP and in favour of the respondents.
The judgement came three days ahead of the inauguration of the President-elect, Bola Tinubu as Nigeria’s president.
Outgoing President Muhammadu Buhari had on Thursday conferred Nigeria’s highest national honour, GCFR, on Tinubu preparatory to the president-elect’s inauguration on 29 May. The second highest national honour, GCON, was also conferred on Vice President-elect Kashim Shettima.
Unknown to many, this suit predated the February 2023 presidential election. The case differs from the election petition case that the party filed at the presidential election court in the aftermath of the February election to challenge Tinubu’s victory.
The PDP filed the suit challenging the Tinubu/Shettima candidature suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja on 28 July 2022. Shettima was already the senatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for Borno Central Senatorial District at the time of his nomination as the party’s vice-presidential candidate last year.
PDP said he had yet to withdraw his senatorial candidature as of the time his party nominated him as its vice-presidential candidate.
The opposition party argued that such double nominations of a person for elections to different constituencies in an election cycle breached the provisions of sections 29(1), 33, 35 and 84{1) (2)}of the Electoral Act, 2022.
The breach, according to the plaintiff, invalidated the APC’s presidential ticket. PDP, therefore, sought an order disqualifying APC and its candidates – Messrs Tinubu and Shettima – from participating in the 2023 presidential election.
But delivering judgement on 13 January, the judge, Inyang Ekwo, had dismissed the case on the grounds that PDP lacked the legal right to enquire into what he described as an internal affair of the APC.
Ekwo added that the suit was caught by the principle of estoppel, saying the issue of Mr Shettima’s nomination as Mr Tinubu’s running mate was earlier decided by another court of competent jurisdiction.
The judge held that the suit was an abuse of the court process and, as such, deserved to be dismissed.
Displeased with the judgement, PDP appealed against it at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
But the appellate court dismissed the appeal in its verdict on 25 March, exactly one month after the presidential election won by Mr Tinubu and his party were declared to have won.
A three-member panel of Justices of the Court of Appeal affirmed the Federal High Court’s decision.
In the lead judgement delivered by James Abunduga, the appellate court described the PDP as a meddlesome interloper for dabbling into the affairs of the APC.
The PDP further appealed to the Supreme Court.
A five-man panel of Jury led by Inyang Okoro heard the appeal on Monday and fixed last Friday for judgement and again, PDP lost the case.
As far as the learned and the discerning were concerned, it never looked any likely that the courts could stop the inauguration and swearing-in of Tinubu and his vice, Shettima. Those who know would tell you that the two presidential candidates of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party, Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, knew they were alreaqdy fighting a lost battle. But it seems as though it has become traditional for losers of election, with the exception of Goodluck Jonathan, to reject election results once it does not favour them. Then they head to court in a bid to strive to put up a fight that they hope would be sufficient to placate their followers who would now see them as one candidate that has vowed not to go down without a fight. And that is exactly what it is in the case of the Atiku/Obi petition against Tinubu’s victory. It is all noise, no substance. There was simpoly no way the courts could’ve stopped the vswearing-in.
It must be noted that two days before the Supreme Court gave it’s final judgement last Friday, one of the Senior Lawyers, Babatunde Ogala (SAN) who’s a member of the Defence team of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the APC had assured friends via a WhatsApp message that there was no cause for alarm.
Below is the message from Ogala:
Good Morning all.
I personally argued this appeal from the trial court to the Supreme Court. I was at the Supreme Court on Monday when the appeal was heard and argued same. Judgement is reserved for Friday 26th.
The issue in the appeal is very narrow. The PDP had sued APC, Tinubu and Shettima at the Federal High Court contending that Shettima had been nominated in two constituencies. We filed our counter affidavit which clearly showed otherwise. We also filed a preliminary objection that PDP lacked locus standi to bring the suit; that the suit was an abuse of court process, that it was caught by the doctrine of re judicature and disclosed no cause of action. The FHC upheld our objection and dismissed the suit for lack of locus. PDP appealed to the Court of Appeal challenging the ruling of the FHC that they lack locus and the Court upheld the decision of the FHC and dismissed the appeal with 5 million naira costs against PDP.
They then appealed to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court they attempt3d to argue fresh issues that were not in issue at the court of appeal including asking rhe SC to invoke its powers to hear the matter on merit. We filed our Respondent brief along with a Notice of Preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent and that the SC lack jurisdiction to even assume the powers of the Federal High Court to hear the matter as the issue that was before the court of appeal and determined was on locus standi. We further argued that the suit at the lower court was already statute barred and the SC cannot even hear same outside the 180 days prescribed by the constitution. The court laid two posers to Joe Agi, SAN to answer to convince them on locus and that even if the SC assumes jurisdiction, the case is already statute barred and will be academic. He had no answer for the posers. I argued that the only issue before the court of appeal was on locus and they cannot even be heard to appeal a decision that didn’t emanate from the court below. I also argued that the SC lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal as constituted. The court didn’t even hear the merit of the case on double nomination as it was not in issue.
The court after taking arguments adjourned to Friday 26th for judgement.
So I don’t know where all the social media reportage of a non existing issue of determination of Shettima’s eligibility is coming from. Its all just a social media hype to heat up the system and create public apprehension.
As we await the SC decision please be assured that our case is unassailable in law.
Like I noted, I personally handled and argued the appeal from the Federal High Court to the Supreme Court”.
Babatunde Ogala SAN
Few hours after the Supreme Court Judgement on Friday, Justice Okoro, apparently miffed by the contents of the case as filed by the PDP, reacted to the judgement and gave his own interpretation as published below:
I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the judgement of my learned brother and I totally agree with the submissions. I must however state the following as this Court is a policy Court;
- The appellant stated to this court that the court below found that there was indeed double nomination and that the 4th respondent knowingly allowed himself to be nominated in two constituencies. I have searched the entirety of the record and indeed the judgement of the court below and there is no such finding. To think that learned senior counsel will mislead the court is sad.
- For public policy sake, I must state that indeed the 4th respondent withdrew from the nomination for Borno Central District on the 6th of July, 2022 exhibited as Exhibit APC I on page 58 of the record of Appeal.
- The political party sent to the INEC same 6th of July, 2022 the notice of withdrawal. The political party further sent on the 10th of July, 2022 notification of dates for the conduct of fresh primaries for the senatorial district and the latter letter exhibit APC 2 on page 59 of the record carried the reference of Exhibit APC 1. That is as at the 4th Respondent for Borno Central Senatorial District and there could not have been double nomination on the 14th of July, 2022.
- Using the social media to terrorise and bully the Justice of the Supreme Court by the Appellant is appealling and unprofessional.
- The Appeal is withouit merit and is dismissed, I abide by the award of cost in the lead judgement.
The former president of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Olisa Agbakoba, also shares this sentiment. The legal Icon said there is no constitutional process that can delay the presidential inauguration on May 29.
Agbakoba however stated that the swearing-in of Tinubu as president was bound to hold. He said, “It is important to state that the inauguration of Mr. Bola Tinubu on 29 May 2023 is bound to happen under our constitutional process,” he said.
“While the election tribunal deals with the petitions there is no constitutional process to delay the inauguration on 29 May. “We need to obey the rule of constitutionalism.”
And indeed, he has been proven right. The inauguration has held as expected and a new president and his deputy have been sworn in, heralding the beginning of a new dawn.
– WALE LAWAL
(08037209290)
