Shettima’s perjury: Implications of Supreme Court May 26 ruling on PEPT proceedings

[By VICTOR NZE]

Legal analysts posit that the Supreme Court’s May 26 ruling on the perjury case filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the candidates of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 25 elections, Bola Tinubu and his vice, Kashim Shettima in the February 25 election could make or mar proceedings at the ongoing Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) in Abuja.

It is also believed that the since the case is also one of the grounds sought directly by two of the petitioners; the PDP and the Labour Party (LP) and indirectly by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), for disqualification of the APC candidate and his vice, a ruling which affirms both the high court and appellant court ruling may continue to give leg for the PEPT to stand on.

However, a vacation of the Appeal Court ruling by the Supreme Court could dent the respondent’s case at the tribunal and force an election cancellation, even before the PEPT had reached a decision.

It would be recalled that the Supreme Court, had fixed May 26 to deliver judgment in an appeal by the PDP against Tinubu and Shettima of the APC.

A five-member panel of Justices led by Justice John Okoro, had on Monday, fixed the date after all the parties involved adopted and argued their briefs in the matter.

While Mr Babatunde Ogala SAN the Counsel to the APC asked the court to strike out the case since the 180 days stipulated by the law to hear the case has elapsed, Mr Joe Agim SAN, Counsel to PDP held otherwise.

Agim said that the issue of the 180 days does not apply because the matter of double nomination was purely an illegality and because illegality cannot stand the court has the right to entertain the matter.

He said the apex court will determine whether there was double nomination and also whether they have locus standi.

“They have done that before, they did it in the case of Nwosu and APC and they will do it again’’, Agim added.

The counsels to the first respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Adebiyi Adetosoye and Ogala representing the APC, respectively, asked that the case be dismissed and heavy costs awarded against the appellant.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed the appeal filed by the PDP seeking the disqualification of Tinubu and Shettima as the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of the APC in the February 25 election.

The PDP had by their appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CV/108/2023 urged the appellate court to reverse the January 13 judgment by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja which dismissed its suit on the grounds that the PDP lacked locus standi to have instituted the suit.

The unanimous judgment on Friday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, held, in the lead judgment that the PDP failed to establish its locus standi.

Justice James Abundaga, who agreed with the submissions of lawyers to the respondents, including Thomas Ojo of Lateef Fagbemi and Co, described the PDP as a busy body, who dabbled into issues that are internal affairs of the APC.

Justice Abundaga held that the trial court was right to have held that the PDP failed to establish its locus standi.

“The appellant, having failed to disclose its locus standi, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed,” he said and proceeded to affirm the judgment of the Federal High Court.

Justice Abundaga awarded N5million cost against the appellant’s lawyer, J. O. Olotu.

The PDP had, in the suit filed on July 28, 2022, challenged the validity of the Tinubu/Shettima ticket for the 2023 presidential election, arguing that Shettima’s nomination as the running mate was in breach of the provisions of Sections 29(1), 33, 35 and 84{1)}(2)} of the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended).

They claimed that Shettima had double nominations, the PDP argued that Shettima’s nomination as a vice-presidential candidate as well as the candidate for the Borno Central Senatorial seat contravened the law.

However, while the PDP and Labour Party also have the claims as one the grounds for challenging INEC’s declaration of Tinubu as winner and president-elect in the February 25 election, the APM, however, in the single ground contained in its petition before the PEPT say the introduction of the ‘place holder’ system by the APC in fielding Shettima’s stand-in candidate for the presidential poll, while the latter ran for a senatorial seat at the same election, is void.

Arguments for and against a Supreme Court affirmation or vacation of the case mounts, as many point to other similar suits involving Mrs Alhassan Dahiru of the APC in the 2019 Taraba governorship election against incumbent governor, Darius Ishaku of the PDP, where the court overruled the election tribunal on the ground that pre-election matters are internal affairs of a party.

This school further points out the Supreme Court decision on the cases involving Godswill Akpabio and Senator Ahmed Lawan, who both did not contest the primaries but were allowed to contest the senatorial elections in Akwa Ibom North and Yobe North senatorial zones,  respectively, on the grounds that the APC had reached a place holder agreement with the candidates who eventually won the party tickets.

However, there are also those who insist that in Bayelsa State’s 2019 governorship election, the Supreme Court sacked Mr David Lyon because his Deputy had issues with his academic certificate, in the same way as they pointed out that Uche Nwosu was disqualified in the Imo State governorship election of 2019 for double nomination.

According to this school, ‘Shettima is no different.’

As opinions vary, there are still others who claim the Supreme Court may not want to preempt or jeopardise proceedings at the tribunal by making a decision that will certainly influence the outcome of the ongoing PEPT, especially barely days after the tribunals’ inauguration, just as it is yet to commence full trial proceedings.

It is also seen that the PEPT is the platform legally authorized to rule or consider pre-election and election matters.

It is, therefore, considered that in the light of these emerging implications, the Supreme Court may reserve judgement on the matter, pending the determination of such by the PEPT.