Supreme Court: Alleged Phone Conversation Between CJN, Tinubu False

•PDP, Atiku  express confidence in judiciary, say its image at stake

Chuks Okocha and Alex Enumah in Abuja

The Supreme Court, yesterday, denied report that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, had a telephone conversation with anybody, including President Bola Tinubu, over the on-going proceedings at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PREPEC), hearing complaints against the 2023 general election.

At the same time, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku  Abubakar, had expressed confidence in the ability of the judiciary to deliver fair judgement that would be acceptable to all parties, but warned its image was at stake.

The apex court, in a statement by its Director of Press and Information, Dr. Festus Akande, said Ariwoola neither spoke with Tinubu nor the Director General of the Department of State Service (DSS) with a view to pressurising the PREPEC on the likely judgment to give in respect of the petitions.

The statement read: “In view of the rumour currently circulating in the social media space that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, had a telephone conversation with His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Director General of the Department of State Service (DSS) with a view to pressurising the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on the likely judgment to give, it is imperative to state clearly that there is no iota of truth in the narrative, as there was no such telephone conversation between the CJN and anyone.

“Nigerians have been following the proceedings at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal with admirable enthusiasm. So, it is advisable we all sustain the tempo and follow it up to the end, instead of relapsing into the realm of speculations and rumour peddling that will not do anyone any good.

“If this current trend of falsehood and mudslinging is sustained, our nation may not make the desired progress. The Courts are statutorily established to serve the best interest of the masses; and we are ever poised to do that to the best of our ability.

“We wish to plead with everyone to cooperate with the judiciary to serve the country to its full capacity, as no one will ever be favoured against the other in any dispute.

“The rule of law and supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution will always be upheld and applied in every matter that comes before the courts; as the facts presented and the subsisting laws must be applied in determining the merit or otherwise of each matter.

“The public should rest assured that justice will be done to all matters pending in the various courts across the country, irrespective of who is involved,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, the Director of Strategy and Research of the PDP presidential campaign Council, Pedro Obaseki, has expressed confidence that the judges would summon the courage to address issues raised by the opposition parties in the 2023 presidential election

Fielding questions from journalists in Abuja, Obaseki, who specifically referenced the petition by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) seeking the nullification of President Bola Tinubu and Kashim Shettima’s victory in the 2023 election, noted that the, “issue of eligibility is key.”

According to him, “The first thing is eligibility, if ten people followed me to run a race, I can begin to question who won, only if those ten people were qualified, that is what has been thrown up by the APM petition.

“It looked at whether Tinubu could have run for the polls, and if he could, was his nomination by his party valid? This is a constitutional problem, a question that the court must answer because it is the foundation of the entire race from the beginning.

Obaseki, who is also a lawyer, said, “If you look at what APM has done, they started by why and when they can question an election and stated three clear provisions, when elections can be questioned, such as section 134 of the electoral act of 2022 as amended.

“In section 134 says the person whose election is questioned must at the time of election not qualified to contest, so they are going to prove that Tinubu and Shettima were not qualified to contest and the three things are clear.

“One, section 35 of the electoral act states that where a candidate allows himself to be nominated by more than one political party or in more than one political constituency, his nomination shall be void, Nigeria is a constituency if you are running for presidency, a state is a constituency.

“When you are running for governor, a senatorial district is a constituency, when you are running for senate, so as at the time of 2023 election in February and March, both the slot of the presidency, vice presidency and the Borno South senatorial district were three different constituency.

“As at the day of the nomination process, Mr Shettima had two nominations, that is a statement of fact. That is what this petition by the APM has gone ahead to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the reasonable doubt will only occur if the petition is based on hear say.”

Obaseki, who made reference to the case filed by the PDP on the same issue, said the PDP’s case was different because the election was yet to hold as at July, 2022 when the case was dismissed at the Supreme Court

“People might be wondering that the Supreme Court did not say something about that when PDP went to court, that is very different.  The PDP went to court in July 2022 to contest the double nomination and place holder position, which is also unknown to law with Mr. Masari and Shettima and the court ruled without looking at the substantive case.

 “On the Locus, does PDP have the right to question an internal issue of the APC, when the election has not held, because you cannot be guilty of a crime that has not been committed. Until an election is held, you cannot hold anybody responsible for fielding a wrong candidate, except you are member of the APC,” he said.