The Official Political decision Petitions Council will today hear the movements brought by the official competitor of Work Party (LP), Peter Obi, over the result of the February 25 political decision.
The directing equity of the court, Equity Haruna Tsammani, had on Monday planned the consultation on the reactions to pre-hearing inquiries by the gatherings on Obi and LP’s appeal.
The tribunal will review the parties’ compliance with its directive to streamline issues they would rely on in the main hearing during the 2 p.m. proceeding.
Essentially, Obi and LP will bring their movement for the live transmission of procedures of the court in light of the fact that, as per them, the petitions are of public interest.
Tinubu wants Atiku’s petition challenging his dual citizenship to be rejected. During yesterday’s proceedings, the tribunal set May 11 as the date for hearing Bola Tinubu’s two motions challenging Atiku’s petition.
Tinubu is responding to his preliminary objection in the first motion brought by his attorney, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), and he is attempting to strike out some paragraphs in Atiku’s petition where he raised new issues that he claims were not pleaded in the original petition.
Atiku had argued that Tinubu could not run for president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria because he forfeited $460,000 “as substituted by a competent authority, a sequel to a compromise agreement, and for narcotics-related crime (proceeds of crime) in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, Judge A. Nordberg.” As a result, Atiku said, Tinubu is legally barred from doing so.
Atiku also said that Tinubu didn’t tell anyone on his Form EC9 that he voluntarily got the citizenship of the Republic of Guinea and dual citizenship in Nigeria and Guinea.
Additionally, Atiku argued that the grounds for non-qualification are constitutionally valid.
In his second motion, Tinubu also asked the tribunal to dismiss Atiku’s pre-hearing petition alleging incompetence and seeking the annulment of the election due to a violation of the Electoral Act of 2022.
Additionally, Tinubu argued, the petition was “vague, non-specific, nebulous, inchoate, incompetent, imprecise, fraught with ambiguity; and prone to being rejected by the court.”
PDP, Atiku look for live transmission of procedures
Still on Thursday, the council will likewise hear the movement by Atiku looking for live transmission of the procedures.
Chris Uche (SAN), Atiku’s legal counsel, referred to the application as “an order directing the court’s registry and parties on modalities for admission of media practitioners and equipment into the courtroom.”
Atiku argued that the Nigerian constitution supported the request for a live broadcast of the tribunal’s proceedings and that the 2023 general elections were of national concern and public interest.
The court has set May 11 as the deadline for Tinubu’s motion to dismiss the APM’s petition. Meanwhile, Tinubu has also filed a motion at the pre-hearing stage to dismiss the petition of the All Peoples Movement (APM) challenging his election.
On Tuesday, the motion’s hearing date was also set by Justice Haruna Tsammani, the tribunal’s presiding justice.
After the lawyers involved in the case presented evidence that they had responded to the pre-hearing questions posed by Form TF 008 regarding the APM petition, the panel adjourned the application.
Through its attorneys, O. A. Atoyebi (SAN) and S. A. T. Abubakar Esq., APM informed the tribunal on Tuesday that the party has responded to pre-hearing questions posed by respondents INEC, APC, Tinubu, Shettima, and Masari in its petition. Fagbemi informed the tribunal in his response that he had submitted two motions challenging APM’s petition on May 8 and that they are ready for consideration.
Fagbemi maintained that the APM’s petition has no support and is worthless because it did not disclose any reasonable cause of action.
In the motion, he insisted that the APM-contested election was legally held and that a clear winner was declared in accordance with the law.
In a similar vein, Olujinmi stated that on May 3, 2023, he had filed responses on Tinubu and Shettima’s behalf. He also stated that the processes are prepared for determination and that he would respond on the date of the pre-hearing.
Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), INEC’s lead attorney, stated that he had submitted responses to the inquiries regarding the pre-hearing proceedings.
Equity Tsammani encouraged the gatherings to inspect every one of the applications recorded and conclude which they would have a problem with and which they wouldn’t before the following pre-hearing meeting.
APM argues in its petition that Tinubu is unqualified to run for president in 2023 because he hasn’t chosen a legitimate running mate.
As of the date he was nominated as the vice presidential candidate on July 14, 2022, the APM claims that Shettima was still the APC’s senatorial candidate for Borno Central Senatorial District, Borno State.
The party contended that notwithstanding pulling out his senatorial candidature on July 15, 2022, he had penetrated the Discretionary Demonstration, 2022, through twofold or various selections.
Additionally, the APM and Chichi Ojei, its presidential candidate, argued that the election was marred by widespread irregularities. Today, the Tribunal hears Obi’s motion, and tomorrow, Atiku’s on Tinubu’s citizenship.