The All Progressives Congress (APC) has asked the Presidential Election Petitions Court in Abuja to dismiss three petitions filed by opposition parties that challenge the victory of its presidential candidate, Senator Bola Tinubu, in the February 25 election. The APC submitted three separate responses to the tribunal’s secretariat on Sunday night, signed by Thomas Ojo, a member of the party’s legal team led by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN.
The petitions were filed by the Action Alliance (AA), the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and the Action People’s Party (APP). Each petition, numbered CA/PEPC/01/2023, CA/PEPC/04/2023 and CA/PEPC/02/2023, alleges substantial non‑compliance with electoral laws and INEC guidelines. AA claims that its candidate, Solomon‑David Okanigbuan, was excluded from the presidential poll, seeking to void the election. APM argues that Tinubu was unqualified because of a purported double nomination of his vice‑presidential candidate and questions the substitution of the original placeholder, Kabir Masari, with Kashim Shettima. APP contends that Tinubu was ineligible to contest the election under Sections 131(c) and 142 of the Constitution and Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022.
In its response, the APC rejected AA’s allegation of exclusion, noting that the party’s recognized candidate, Mr. Al‑Mustapha, did indeed participate in the election. The APC asserted that Tinubu was “duly elected and returned as President‑elect… having won the majority of lawful votes… in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended).” It further argued that Okanigbuan was not AA’s validly nominated and sponsored candidate, that INEC did not unlawfully exclude him because his name was never submitted, and that there is no evidence of a valid AA primary producing Okanigbuan as a candidate. The APC pointed out that Al‑Mustapha, the actual AA candidate, received 14,542 votes.
The APC also challenged the competence of the petitions, describing them as pre‑election matters concerning nomination and sponsorship. It noted that a petition must contest the return or election of the winner, which the AA petition does not. The party argued that issues of nomination and exclusion are statute‑barred, having not been raised within the mandatory 14‑day period prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, and should be heard by the Federal High Court under Section 285 of the Constitution, not by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.
Regarding APM’s petition, the APC maintained that the party lacks standing because it is not a member of the APC and therefore has no special interest in the election of Tinubu. The APC questioned APM’s legal capacity to challenge the APC’s internal nomination process.
Finally, the APC described APP’s petition as frivolous and an attempt to waste the court’s time, asserting that its grounds are unsustainable. Tinubu and Vice‑President‑elect Kashim Shettima remain within the statutory 21‑day period to respond to all three petitions.
Comments are closed for this story.