You’d recall that the PEPT Judges strike out APM’s Petition…
Below are the reasons they struck it out….
The court have struck out some paragraphs 4,5,14,15 and many others of the Petitioners Reply to the Respondents have been struck out for introducing new facts.
The court is attending to several applications which were made before the court.
The one above are applications made by the respondents to strike out some paragraphs of the Petitioners Reply (Not the Petition Proper)
READ ALSO : Hundred Days Of A Mandate Thief – Miss Pearls.
The Court has ruled that
1. Qualifications of a candidate can only be contested under Section 131 & 137 of the Constitution.
2. Tinubu and Shettima cannot be disqualified on the basis of double/multiple nomination or even sponsorship.
3. Peter Obi attempt to use 142(1) of the Constitution as a basis will not be upheld by the court.
4. The issue of double/multiple nomination should have been ventilated in the Federal High Court.
The court holds that the application have no merit and is struck out for being incompetent.
The court have struck out two grounds of objection by the respondents against the Petition.
They had argued that the Petition was filed out of time and is packing in merit.
READ ALSO : That Country Called Nigeria – David Hundeyin
They also argued that since the Petitioners had instituted an action in the High Court which was thrown, by the doctrine of estoppel, the Petition should thrown out.
The court held that it was a different suit and the former was a preselection matter while this is post election.
The court have held that the Petitioners have no locus standi to question issues of nomination as it is a pre-election matter.
It further held that anybody who’s not a member of a political party must look numb and be an onlooker as he does not have locus standi.
The court have struck out the grounds for being incompetent as it is purely a pre-election matter and internal party affairs.
The court have discountenanced the motion of the Petitioners for not joining other parties (PDP). The court held that a candidate or political party can institute and action, hence it is ok if they decide to include that party or not.
He further held that joining them is just to make them bound by the judgment.
As it stands, the APM have no case anymore as their issue for disqualification was solely tied to provisions the Electoral Act and not Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution.
On Shettima Double/Multiple Nomination…
1. Shettima cannot be disqualified as earlier stated by the court as the basis of argument is not on the 1999 Constitution.
2. Every disqualification must be based on those provided for under Section 137 of the Constitution.
The court just held that the Supreme Court decision where PDP questioned Shettima’s double nomination was substantial and final and binding on all the parties and the entire world.
Since it is a Supreme Court Judgment, it stands. The court upheld the arguments of the Tinubu/APC.
(please note that the court is still on the APM case)
The court holds that Shettima had no intent to be a multiple candidate by his conduct of sending the withdrawal letter to the party.
THE COURT HAS STRUCK OUT THE PETITION OF APM AS IT IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, HAVING RESOLVED THE ISSUES ON DOUBLE/MULTIPLE OF SHETTIMA IN THE FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS.
The court will now rise and continue with the Peter Obi Petition shortly
– UC Maxwell