Wole Olanipekun, counsel representing President Bola Tinubu, and his Vice, Kashim Shettima, has said the Supreme Court judgement which dismissed a suit by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), affects the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
Gatekeepers News reports that PDP’s case against the APC presidential candidates was on the grounds of double nomination.
PDP had claimed that Shettima was still the APC candidate for Borno central senatorial district on July 14 when he accepted the nomination for vice-presidential candidate.
Nevertheless, in a judgement delivered on Friday, the apex court dismissed the appeal for lacking merit.5
A five-member panel of the apex court held that the opposition party not being a member of the APC, lacked the locus standi to institute the suit.
The Supreme court also ruled that Shettima was not guilty of double nomination.
Olaonipekun, while speaking at the resumed tribunal session on Tuesday, said the judgement of the apex court already affects the petition of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
The APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, contended that the withdrawal of Ibrahim Masari who was initially nominated as the vice presidential candidate of the APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
It argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, (5th respondent in the petition) expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu replaced him with Shettima.
Tinubu’s counsel promised to obtain a certified true copy (CTC) of the judgement and make it available to the court within two days.
He also said he hopes to meet with the lawyer of the petitioner to know whether the APM intends to continue with its case considering the supreme court’s judgement.
In response to this, APM counsel, Shehu Abubakar said he is yet to obtain a copy of the Supreme court’s verdict.
Abubakar sought an adjournment to enable him to apply for the judgment and make relevant consultations on the way forward.
The court adjourned the hearing to Friday, June 2 for continuation.