The Allied Peoples Movement, APM, said on Monday that it would present only one witness to prove its claim that the President-elect of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, was not the legitimate winner of the 2023 presidential election.
The APM, which is contesting the election results, told the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, through its lawyer, Mr. S. Abubakar, that it would present enough documentary evidence to prove its petition against the President-elect.
Mr. Abubakar told the court that some of the petition’s parties met last Saturday and agreed on some of the modalities that would be used during the case’s hearing, including the time allotted for the examination-in-chief of witnesses.
Whereas the parties agreed to give star witnesses 20 minutes of testimony, they would be cross-examined for 25 minutes and re-examined for five minutes.
The petitioner’s counsel also informed the court that it was agreed that a schedule of documents to be relied on by parties must be exchanged, and that expert witness reports must be filed and served at least 48 hours before the hearing.
“My lords, our petition is based primarily on documentary evidence.” “It was part of our agreement that any document to be relied on, such as an expert report, must be furnished to parties prior to the hearing date,” APM’s lawyer added.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, said through its lawyer, Mr. Kemi Pinhero, SAN, that it would need to present its lone witness one day.
The APC informed the court that it would require five days to call at least one witness and that others could be summoned.
While Tinubu, the President-elect, stated that he would call three witnesses, Aminu Masari, the fifth respondent, stated that he would also call a lone witness in the matter.
The APM argued in its petition, CA/PEPC/04/2023, that the withdrawal of Mr. Ibrahim Masari, who was initially nominated as the All Progressives Congress, APC’s Vice-Presidential candidate, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy under Sections 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The party claimed that there was a three-week gap between when Masari, who was listed as the fifth respondent in the petition, expressed his intention to withdraw, when his purported nomination was actually withdrawn, and when Tinubu allegedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.
It also claimed that Tinubu’s candidacy had expired when he nominated Shettima to replace Masari.
According to the petitioner, Tinubu “was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regard to the provisions of section 142 of the 1999 Constitution” at the time he announced Shettima as the Vice Presidential candidate.
Furthermore, APM argued that Masari’s initial nomination activated the Constitution’s joint ticket principle and that his subsequent withdrawal rendered the joint ticket invalid.
As a result, it asked the court to rule that Shettima was not qualified to run as the APC’s Vice-Presidential candidate on February 25, when the election was conducted by INEC, citing Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“An order nullifying and voiding all of Tinubu’s votes in the presidential election due to his ineligibility as an APC candidate.”
Similarly, an order to set aside the Certificate of Return issued by INEC to the President-elect.
It is asking the court to overturn all of Tinubu’s votes and declare the candidate with the second highest number of valid votes the winner of the election.
