The All Progressives Congress (APC) has requested that three opposition parties’ petitions disputing the election victory of Bola Tinubu, its candidate for president, be dismissed by the presidential election tribunals.
The Action Alliance (AA), Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and Action People’s Party (APP) had, challenged the election of Mr. Tinubu as president-elect in separate petitions.
In three distinct responses, the APC urged the tribunal to disregard the petitions. Thomas Ojo, a member of the party’s legal team in Abuja under the direction of Lateef Fagbemi, filed them at the secretariat of the presidential election petitions court on Sunday night.
In the case, AA filed claims against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the APC, Mr. Tinubu, and its factional presidential candidate Hamza Al-Mustapha.
APM joined INEC, APC, Mr. Tinubu, Kashim Shettima, and Kabir Masari in their petition. Mr. Masari served as a vice presidential placeholder during the primary until being replaced by Mr. Shettima.
The APP petitioned the court as the first, second, and third respondents against Mr. Tinubu, APC, and INEC, respectively.
In the lawsuits with the case numbers CA/PEPC/01/2023, CA/PEPC/04/2023, and CA/PEPC/02/2023, respectively, AA and its presidential candidates APM and APP are contesting the results of the presidential election on the grounds of alleged serious non-compliance with the electoral laws and INEC regulations.
The APM argues that Mr. Tinubu was ineligible to run for office because of the alleged double nomination of Mr. Shettima, while the AA asserted that its candidate, Solomon-David Okanigbuan, was disqualified from the presidential election and that the election should be declared null and void as a result.
APM further questions Mr. Tinubu’s candidacy on the grounds that Mr. Shettima was used in place of the original stand-in, Kabir Masari.
The APP claimed that Mr Tinubu, at the time of the election, was not qualified to contest the poll because of sections 131(c) and 142 of the Constitution and section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022.
APC stated that contrary to AA’s claim, Mr Tinubu “was duly elected and returned as the President-elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, having won the majority of lawful votes cast in the said election devoid of corrupt practices or vices and in substantial compliance with the provisions of Electoral Act 2022 (as amended).”
It argued that the ground on which the AA brought its petition “is not meritorious and facts in support of same are not availing to validate the petitioners’ claims and/or purported right to present the instant petition.”
The APC added that Mr Okanigbuan, listed as the second petitioner, “is not the first petitioner’s AA’s validly nominated and sponsored candidate to contest the presidential elections held on February 25.
APC also argued that as against the AA’s claim, INEC (listed as the 1st respondent) did not unlawfully exclude Mr Okanigbuan’s name because he was never the lawfully nominated and sponsored candidate of the petitioner, which did not submit his name to INEC as its candidate for the election.
It added that there is no evidence that the AA conducted a valid primary from which Mr Okanigbuan emerged as a candidate, noting that Mr Al-Mustapha was the actual candidate of the AA, who INEC recognised.
The APC stated that Mr Okanigbuan was not nominated and sponsored by the AA as its candidate to contest the presidential elections, adding that the party “was not and could not have been excluded from the election as it participated in the presidential election with the fourth respondent (Mr Al-Mustapha) as its candidate” who participated in the election and scored 14,542 votes.
In its notice of preliminary objection, the APC questioned the competence of the petition, noting that it was based solely on pre-election issues.
It said, “For an election petition to be competent, it must complain against the return and/or election of the winner of the disputed election. The instant petition is neither challenging and/or questioning the election of the seconnd and/or third respondent (APC/Tinubu). The petition as presently constituted amounts to a pre-election matter of nomination and sponsorship of candidate(s).”
The party added, “The crux of the petition being the nomination and sponsorship of the 1st petitioner’s candidate is statute-barred, having not been commenced within the mandatory 14 days provided for under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Issues of nomination, sponsorship and exclusion of candidates for an election are issues that precede the conduct of an election and are pre-election matters that cannot be raised or canvased before an election tribunal.”
It reasoned that facts in support of the petition speak to intra-party issues, pre-election disputes and administrative actions of INEC “triable by Federal High Court under Section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered by the fourth Alteration Act and outside the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal being a Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.”
The APC asked the tribunal to dismiss APM’s petition.
The party, in its preliminary objection equally filed on Sunday, argued that “the petitioner (APM) alone in the absence of its sponsored candidate cannot benefit and did not have any special interest in the election or return of the third respondent (Tinubu) as the winner of the election.”
The APC queried the legal capacity of the party to challenge the mode it adopted in nominating its candidate, arguing that since the APM was not a party member, it did not know “how it becomes the petitioner’s business how it nominates its candidates.
“The petitioner does not fall under the category of persons that can challenge the internal working operation of the second respondent (APC) regarding the nomination and sponsorship of the second respondent’s candidates for the election,” it noted.
The APC equally faulted the competence of the petition by the APP, arguing that the grounds on which it was founded were not sustainable. It described the petition as frivolous and an attempt to waste the court’s time.
The presidential candidates of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, and his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s counterpart, Atiku Abubakar, are also contesting the election.