Presidential Election: Court Dismisses AA’s Suit against Tinubu

•Orders APP, LP to harmonise processes with INEC, APC 

•Hears APM, PDP today

•Atiku, PDP make case for live broadcast of proceedings

Alex Enumah in Abuja

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), at its inaugural sitting, yesterday, dismissed the petition of the Action Alliance (AA) challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu as winner of the February 25 presidential election.

The dismissal was sequel to a formal withdrawal of the petition by the petitioners.

AA and its presidential candidate, Mr Solomon Okagbuan, were among the five participants seeking cancellation of the recent presidential election.

Other petitioners were Action People’s Party (APP) with petition number: CA/PEPC/02/2023; Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi, with suit number: CA/PEPC/03/2023; Allied People’s Movement (APM) and its presidential candidate, Princess ChiChi Ojei, with suit marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023; and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, with suit number: CA/ PEPC/05/203.

Except for AA, the other petitioners challenged the election, which produced Tinubu as president-elect on grounds that included substantial non-compliance with the electoral laws, corrupt practices, as well as non-qualification of Tinubu and his party to contest the February 25 presidential poll.

In the AA’s petition marked CA/PEPC/01/2023, the petitioners had prayed the court to cancel the presidential election on the grounds that its candidate’s name (Solomon Okagbuan) was excluded from INEC’s list of presidential candidates.

While Okagbuan and AA were the petitioners, the defendants were the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), APC, Tinubu, and Hamza Al-Mustapha (a factional presidential candidate of the AA).

Until a few days to the presidential election, when the Supreme Court held otherwise, INEC had recognised Al-Mustapha as the candidate of AA, thereby necessitating the petition by Okagbuan.

While Okagbuan was sponsored by the faction led by Chief Adekunle Omoaje, Al Mustapha was sponsored by the faction led by Mr Kenneth Udeze.

The petition of the Omoaje faction was filed by their lawyer, Chief Oba Maduabuchi, SAN, in March, while a Notice of Withdrawal was filed on May 3.

When the matter was called up for hearing, Maduabuchi announced appearance for AA but before other parties could announce their presence, a lawyer, Mr Maliki Nwaekpe, stood up to announce appearance for the same AA.

Nwaekpe had announced himself as an applicant seeking the withdrawal of AA’s petition to the surprise of Maduabuchi and others present in court.

Reacting, Maduabuchi told the court he was the one who filed the petition and described Nwaekpe as a stranger not known by the AA. He added that the faction Nwaekpe claimed to be representing had been declared unlawful members of the AA by the Court of Appeal in two separate judgements.

But Nwaekpe insisted that AA never instructed anyone or consented to the filing of the petition in the first place, hence the application for withdrawal.

While the court was trying to sort out the issue of who was the rightful representative of AA in the matter, Maduabuchi informed the court that he was the one who filed and had also applied to withdraw the petition.

Responding, Justice Haruna Tsammani, who led four other justices, held that since both lawyers were asking for the same thing, the appearance of Nwaekpe should be discountenanced and ordered Maduabuchi to move the Notice of Withdrawal dated May 3.

Maduabuchi, in praying the court for an order of withdrawal, also urged for the dismissal of same.

INEC, represented by Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN; Tinubu represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN; APC represented by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN; and Mohammed Sanni, who represented Al-Mustapha, all did not object to the withdrawal of the petition.

In a short ruling, Tsammani held, “In the absence of any objection to the withdrawal of the petition, the application is hereby granted. The petition with suit number CA/PEPC/01/2023 is hereby dismissed.”

Earlier, at an inaugural sitting, the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, upon convening announced the modalities of the proceedings.

In a welcome address, Tsammani informed the court that there were five petitions before them, which included that of AA, APP, LP, APM, and PDP.

He, however, stated that for convenience, the court would take the first three petitions on Monday, and adjourned to Wednesday, while the fourth and fifth petitions, which involved APM and PD, would be taken Tuesday and then adjourned to Thursday.

While soliciting the understanding and cooperation of the bar, the presiding justice assured them that the bench would be fair to all. He added that the bench was not unmindful of the importance of the cases before it.

Tsammani urged the bar to avoid time wasting through unnecessary objections, adding that as lawyers they should avoid making inflammatory statements owing to the importance of the cases before the court.

Responding, lawyers representing parties assured the court of their willingness and preparedness to make the job of the panel less cumbersome.

Olanipekun, who spoke first, assured the court that the lawyers were ready to cooperate with it to ensure justice was delivered at the end of the day.

Chief Chris Uche, SAN, also said the bar would do everything to ensure speedy disposal of the cases owing to the enormous responsibility upon their shoulders.

In the same vein, Dr Levi Ozoukwu, SAN, counsel to LP and Obi, stated that the bar was mindful of the public interest being generated by the case, which outcome he said would greatly impact Nigeria’s jurisprudence as well as the constitution. “We will do whatever is possible to assist the court do justice in the matters,” he said.

Similarly, INEC, represented by Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, noted that the bar recognised the importance of the matter and “we pledge total support so that justice would be done at the end of the day”.

After all parties had identified their individual processes in both the APC and LP petitions, Tsammani ordered that counsel meet to resolve all grey areas in their processes before the next adjourned date.

The justice, in addition, enjoined parties to endeavour to agree on applications that should be taken by the court as well as the issues for determination.

While the petition of the APP was adjourned to Wednesday 9am, that of LP was fixed for 2pm same day, for continuation of pre-hearing.

Meanwhile, the panel will today entertain the petitions of APM and PDP. Parties at the proceedings were expected to identify their various processes and subsequently harmonise for easy and speedy dispensation of justice.

Atiku and PDP were expected, at Tuesday’s sitting, to draw the attention of the panel to a fresh application they filed, seeking the court’s permission for television stations to carry live broadcast of the day to day proceedings of their petition.

Atiku and PDP, in the application dated May 5, and filed May 8, prayed the tribunal for, “An order directing the court’s registry and the parties on modalities for admission of media practitioners and their equipment into the courtroom.”

The application filed on their behalf by a team of lawyers led by Uche, was predicated, among other grounds, the fact that, “The matter before the Honourable Court is a dispute over the outcome of the presidential election held on 25th February 2023, a matter of national concern and public interest, involving citizens and voters in the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, who voted and participated in the said election; and the international community as regards the workings of Nigeria’s electoral process.”

They contended that being a unique electoral dispute with a peculiar constitutional dimension, it was a matter of public interest whereof millions of Nigerian citizens and voters were stakeholders with a constitutional right to receive.

Atiku and PDP said, “An integral part of the constitutional duty of the court to hold proceedings in public is a discretion to allow public access to proceedings either physically or by electronic means. 

“With the huge and tremendous technological advances and developments in Nigeria and beyond, including the current trend by this Honourable Court towards embracing electronic procedures, virtual hearing and electronic filing, a departure from the rules to allow a regulated televising of the proceedings in this matter is in consonance with the maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

“Televising court proceedings is not alien to this Honourable Court, and will enhance public confidence.”