Tribunal Strikes Out APM’s Petition Against Tinubu, Gives Reasons
Interestingly, the tribunal has struck out the APM’s petition against Tinubu and Shettima. The Petitioner’s case rests on the sole ground of the alleged invalid nomination of Tinubu’s running mate, Sen. Kashim Shettima.
The petitioner claimed that Shettima’s nomination as Tinubu’s running mate was in breach of the provisions of the Electoral Act and Constitution.
The issue of qualification or nomination of any candidate is a pre-election matter and should have gone to the Federal High Court.
Even if this court has jurisdiction on the issue of nomination of 3rd
Respondent (Shettima), the matter is statute-barred and
incompetent. The petitioner’s suit should have been filed within
14 days after the cause of action as required by law.
Section 84(3) of the Electoral Act says that a political party shall
not impose nomination qualification or disqualification criteria
outside of those in the Constitution. The provision applicable to
Qualification and disqualification in an election petition are
sections 131 and 137 of the Constitution.
The petitioner (APM) has no locus standi to challenge the
nomination of the candidate of another political party (APC).
They lack locus standi to raise the issue of valid nomination of
Kashim Shettima.
The issue of double nomination against Sen. Shettima was settled by the apex court in the case of PDP Vs. APC & Ors. and cannot be relitigated any further (In this case, the Supreme court held that “section 284(14)(c) of the constitution does not extend to a party poking into the affairs of another party, no matter how pained and disgruntled it may be.”
Political parties are not enjoined to conduct fresh primaries to produce a new Vice-Presidential candidate as it is the sole discretion of a Presidential candidate to nominate his associate and it is not subject to primaries per section 142 of the Constitution.
The 5th Respondent Masari should not have been joined as a party as there is no claim against him.
Summary
The petition does not disclose reasonable cause of action
Grounds for the petition are incompetent
The petitioner failed to prove the lone ground of his petition
The petition is an abuse of the court process
Petition liable to be struck out for being incompetent
The petition by APM is devoid of any merit and dismissed.
