The Supreme Court has fixed May 26 to deliver judgment in a case by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking the disqualification of President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice-President elect Kashim Shettima.
The PDP had urged the apex court to reverse the Court of Appeal judgment, which held that the party failed to establish its locus standi.
The PDP, according to a Channels TV report wanted 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.
lJustice James Abundaga, leading a panel of three justices, described the PDP as a busy body, who dabbled into issues that are internal affairs of the APC.
Respondents in the appeal are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the APC, Tinubu and Shettima.
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 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).
Claiming 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.
The PDP, which sought an order disqualifying the APC, Tinubu and Shettima from contesting the presidential election scheduled for February 25 equally prayed the court for an order nullifying their candidacy.
It further prayed the court for an order compelling INEC to remove their names from its list of nominated or sponsored candidates eligible to contest the election.
The defendants, in their preliminary objection urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
They contended that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to institute the case, which invariably challenged APC’s decision and its nomination of candidates for the election, which were within the confines of the party’s internal affairs and thus, non-justiciable.
English