My Blog

Category: Politics Lite

  • Tribunal: Obi, LP challenge 18 states’ presidential election results

    Tribunal: Obi, LP challenge 18 states’ presidential election results

    The Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate Mr. Peter Obi confirmed to the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that out of 36 states, they will be challenging the election results of 18 states.

    So far, the Petitioners have tendered certified electoral documents obtained from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s Results Viewing Portal (IREV) in only six states.

    A breakdown of the tendered and admitted documents showed that Forms EC8A were tendered in 15 Local Government Areas of Rivers State,  23 in Benue, 18 in Cross River, 23 in Niger State,  20 in Osun, and 16 in Ekiti Local Government Areas.

    Reacting,  INEC, who was represented by Kemi Pinhero SAN, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his Vice, Kashim Shetima, who are 2nd and 3rd respondents and represented by Adebayo Adelodun SAN, as well as the All Progressives Congress (APC), represented by Chief Afolabi Fashanu SAN, hinted to oppose the admissibility of the electoral documents.

    The Respondents confirmed they have gone through the documents sought to be tendered and will be giving reasons for objection when presenting their written addresses.

    Consequently, the panel of the court led by Justice Haruna Tsammani admitted the documents as exhibits after they were tendered by Chief Emeka Okpoko SAN.

    In the meantime, further hearing in the petition has been shifted to June 2, at the instance of the Petitioners.

    Obi and LP approached the PEPC are challenging the declaration of President Bola Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.

      

  • Tribunal: Tinubu, INEC, APC oppose Atiku’s tendered evidences 

    Respondents in the petition filed by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) Abubakar Atiku, Wednesday, opposed the admissibility of documents tendered as evidence in the petition seeking to sack President Bola Tinubu from Office.

    At the commencement of the  proceeding before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), Atiku, through his counsel, Chris Uche SAN, said the team has prepared a second schedule of documents to be tendered on 30th of May and filed on 31st of May, adding that the documents were fully served on the parties involved.

    Among the documents tendered in evidence by the Petitioners through Eyitayo Jegede, SAN were certified true copies of Form EC8A downloaded by the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) from INEC Result Viewing Portal (IREV).

    Form EC8As are sheets used for collection of results at the polling units level.

    The documents numbered as No1- No1A are certification of compliance for 17 local governments of Abia State.

    He also tendered form EC8A for eight LGA of Bayelsa state, EC8A for 23 LGA of Kaduna state, EC8A for 20 LGA of Ogun  state. As well as that of 23 LGA of Kogi state.

    Reacting, Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and INEC, through their counsel, objected to the admissibility of all documents relating to five local governments in Kogi states except Olamuboro, Ofu, Omala, Okohi and Ajaokuta.

    The Petitioners further tendered form EC40G for Kaduna state. This is the form where INEC inputs the number of all polling units that were cancelled or voters that couldn’t vote.

    Finally, they tendered the print of Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) and accreditation data with details including time stamp for 33 states.

    Respondents, INEC through its counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud SAN objected to all, except for Kogi, Sokoto and Rivers State.

    The Petitioners counsel prayed the court to deem the documents as read pursuant to provisions of paragraph 46(A) of the first schedule of the electoral Act.

    The Respondents, however, declined giving consent that the documents be deemed as read, having objected to their admissibility.

    Having tendered the documents, the Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani, admitted them as evidence.

    Justice Tsammani subsequently adjourned the case until Thursday for continuation of proceedings.

    .

  • PDP has right to suspend, expel you, Court tells Wike

    A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, told former Governor of Rivers, Nyesom Wike, that the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) has the right to suspend or expel him if the action is done in accordance with the law.

    Justice James Omotosho stated this in a judgment he delivered on a suit filed by Wike, prior to the 2023 general elections, to seek a court order to stop the PDP from taking action against him without a fair hearing.

    The ex-governor had sued the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC) and National Executive Committee (NEC) as 1st to 3rd respondents.

    Wike, in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/139/2023 dated and field Feb. 2 by his lawyer, Joshua Musa, SAN, also joined the National Chairman of PDP, Dr Iyorchia Ayu; National Secretary of PDP, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, and the Independent National Electoral Commission as 4th to 6th respondents respectively.

    He had prayed for an order directing all parties to maintain the status quo and stay all actions in the matter relating to the threat to suspend or expel him by the 1st to 5th respondents pending the hearing and determination of the originating motion.

    He asked the court to enforce his fundamental right to freedom of association which was allegedly about to be breached by the respondents.

    But the PDP, through its lawyer, Johnson Usman, SAN, disagreed with Wike’s submission.

    He argued that the case was only based on speculation as Wike had failed to provide any evidence to substantiate that the respondents intended to suspend or expel him from the party.

    He said the party had not contemplated suspending or expelling members of the G5 Governors or the Integrity Group, despite engaging in anti-party activities.

    He said Wike and four other governors engaged in anti-party activities by forming the Integrity Group and campaigning for another presidential candidate in the Feb. 25 election.

    The senior lawyer argued that a member, who voluntarily joined an association, must abide by its rules.

    Usman, who argued that the ex-governor must have exhausted the internal mechanism of the party first, said the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, which, he said, was only within the realm of conjuncture.

    He further argued that it was not enough for Wike to institute the suit on fundamental rights enforcement grounds.

    Justice Omotosho had, on Feb. 2, given an interim order against the party and others listed in the face of Wike’s ex-parte motion.

    The judge, who extended the restraining order on Feb. 14, held that all parties should maintain a status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit

    Delivering judgement on Wednesday, Justice Omotosho said the court had considered the processes filed by parties and arguments of counsel.

    He held that suspending or expelling the applicant without affording him the right to defend himself would breach his fundamental rights as enshrined in the party’s and Nigeria’s constitutions.

    He said though the party had the right to suspend or expel its members, this must be done in compliance with its own law.

    The judge said that though Section 46(1) of the law vested jurisdiction on the court if one’s rights had been breached, he said the court would not dabble into the internal affairs of any political party, except where the right of a member had been violated by the party without recourse to its own laws.

    According to him, fundamental human rights are rights enshrined in the constitution of Nigeria and are sacrosanct.

    “Where this right ought to be enforced, the court will do everything within its reach to ensure this.

    “However, as fundamental and sacrosanct these rights are, they are not absolute,” he said.

     Justice Omotosho, therefore, agreed that any member of a political party who appeared before a disciplinary committee should be given the opportunity to defend himself.

    “And if not, any decision taken shall be null and void,” he said.

    He said, “This court is convinced that the applicant is entitled to a fair hearing and that the respondent also has the right to discipline its members in accordance with the law.”

    The judge further said that Wike had the right to associate and that the threat to dismiss him without inviting him to defend himself contravened Article 57 (1) (2) of the party.

    He said that the party’s National Chairman, Dr Iyorchia Ayu, and his agents, were bound to promote constitutional democracy.

  • Presidential Tribunal: Counsel member’s ill- health stalls Obi, LP’s petition hearing

    Presidential Tribunal: Counsel member’s ill- health stalls Obi, LP’s petition hearing

    Hearing in the election petition of the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi was stalled at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) on Wednesday in Abuja.

    At the resumed hearing, counsel to the petitioners, Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN told the court that he was constrained to ask for an adjournment due to unforseen circumstances.

    “My lords, our plan was to continue our case but we had an unexpected development at the secretariat.

    “The unexpected development has to do with the  Illness of two of our key staff members for which reason I am constrained to pray for an adjournment until tomorrow.”

    When the presiding judge, Justice Haruna Tsammani asked for the response of Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) he said he was not opposing the application.

    “My lords I thought learned counsel would have given us heads up on this, however, in the circumstance,  I am constrained not to object and this will count as a day out of their three weeks.”

    Counsel to the All Progressives Congress, (APC)_ Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN and that of President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima also did not object to the application.

    Justice Tsammani then adjourned the matter until Thursday saying today would be counted as a day within the petitioners’ three weeks.

    Speaking to newsmen, Kalu said that the set back would not affect his client’s case.

    He said that his team would use the remaining days to prove his client’s case.

    Having told the PEPC that they would need three weeks to prove their case, the petitioners now have 19 days to go.

  • Alleged Drug Case: Obi tenders USA $460k forfeiture order as evidence against Tinubu 

    Alleged Drug Case: Obi tenders USA $460k forfeiture order as evidence against Tinubu 

    The Presidential Election Petition Court(PEPC) has admitted in evidence, a United States of America (USA) District Court judgment that reportedly indicted President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and ordered his forfeiture of $460,000 in drug related offences.

    The first Petition Witness (PW1), Barrister Lawrence Uchechukwu Nnanna Nwakaeti, tendered the certified true copy of the judgment in court on Tuesday.

    The PW1, in his evidence-in-chief, led by Mr Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, tendered the court’s judgment as part of requests by Obi and Labour Party to prove that Tinubu was not qualified to run the election of the 2023 presidency.

    However, Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) announced that they have objections against admission of the judgment but reserved the objections to final address stage.

    Under cross examination by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN who stood for President Tinubu, the witness admitted that the judgment was not registered in Nigeria.

    The witness admitted that there was no certificate from any Consular in Nigeria or America in support of the judgment but insisted that “the judgment speaks for itself”.

    He claimed to have been to the United States of America and read the judgment in its entirety adding that he would be surprised if no mention was made of $460,000 forfeiture.

    On his part, counsel to Tinubu, Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, asked the witness if he has a certificate under the Police officer in the US where the alleged crime took place.

    However, the witness said that the American Court judgment had no certificate given under the hand of any American Police Officer.

    He denied knowledge of a February 4, 2003 Formal Clearance Report by Legal Attachee from American Embassy in respect of the alleged indictment and forfeiture.

    When asked by Fagbemi SAN to produce a copy of the charges against Tinubu, the witness admitted not having any but maintained that the indictment and forfeiture are from civil proceedings.

    Meantime, Justice Haruna Tsamani led panel admitted the documents as evidence.

     Further hearing in the petition continues tomorrow, May 31.

  • Presidential Tribunal stalls APM’s petition against Tinubu

    The decision of the Supreme Court on Tuesday stalled the hearing on the petition instituted by the Allied People’s Movement (APM) against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his Vice, Kashim Shetima.

    Tinubu, through his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, told the Court that the petition challenging his declaration as President on the ground of “placeholder by Kabir Masari was resolved by the Supreme Court last Friday in a judgment on similar ground.

    According to Olanipeku, the Peoples’ Democratic Party’s (PDP) suit number SC/CV/501/2023 had resolved the grievances brought before the Court by APM.

    On May 26, the Apex held that PDP, or any other parties, have no right to delve into how other parties conducted their primary elections and nominated their candidates.

    The court described the party as a busybody and meddlesome interloper and imposed a fine of N2m on the party for meddling in the internal affairs of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Olanipekun argued that the APM’S petition was similar to the case taken to the Supreme Court by the PDP and dismissed on the grounds that the PDP has no business interfering with the internal affairs of other parties.

    He submitted that the APM’S petition is predicated on the internal affairs of the APC and that the Supreme Court’s latest judgment resolved the issue in the petition.

    He promised to make a copy of the judgment available within two days to the Court to examine the effects on the APM’S petition.

    “We are sure the Supreme Court a decision on this same subject on Friday in suit no SC/CV/501/2023 in PDP vs INEC and 3 others.

    “The court considered all the issues and resolved it. We promise that within the next two days, certified true copies will be made available for us.

    “We will also confront the Petitioner whether there is still a need to continue with the petition,” Olanipekun submitted.

    Responding, Counsel to the APM, Mr Sheu Abubakar requested for adjournment in the hearing of the petition based on the submissions and revelations of Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN.

    “Based on the submissions of Olanipekun, we shall be praying to the court for an adjustment of the hearing of this Petition to enable us to apply to the Supreme Court for CTC to ascertain the effect the decision has on this Petition.

    “We pray for adjournment till Friday,” Abubakar prayed.

    Other parties in the matter had no objections to the motion for adjournment.

    Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani granted the request for adjournment and shifted the hearing till Friday, June 2.

      
  • Tinubu’s Inauguration:Court awards N17m against 3 litigants, lawyer 

    Tinubu’s Inauguration:Court awards N17m against 3 litigants, lawyer 

    Justice James Omotoso of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Friday awarded N17 million fine against  three litigants and their lawyer for filing a frivolous suit seeking to stop the inauguration of the President-elect, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

    The decision is coming just hours after the Supreme Court dismissed another suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking to void the candidacy of Tinubu and the Vice-president elect, Kashim Shettma.

    The litigants, Praise Ilemona,  Pastor Paul Issac Audu  and Dr Anongu Moses jointly instituted the suit praying for an order to halt the May 29 swearing-in of Tinubu.

    Dismissing the suit, the court held that it was frivolous and an abuse of court process.

    The Judge held that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to file the suit, adding that the court could not exercise jurisdiction to hear it because it relates to a presidential election.

    The three litigants are to jointly pay the President-elect a sum of N10 million and another N5 million to the All Progressives Congress (APC) who were part of the seven defendants in the suit.

    The judgement held that an interest of 10 percentage be placed on the judgment debt per year until when finally liquidated.

    Meanwhile, counsel to the petitioners, Daniel Elomah who filed the suit was ordered to pay N1m to Tinubu and the APC each.

    Elomah in his motion alleged that the President-elect, Bola Tinubu supplied false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) about his age and citizenship status.

    Elomah had pleaded with the court to pardon his clients and advised that the court should counsel them against embarking frivolous suit in future.

    In his argument, counsel to Tinubu, Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, had argued that the suit be dismissed on the ground that the three plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute it

    He submitted that non of the plaintiffs participated in the primary election that produced the President-elect but chose to harass, intimidate and irritate Tinubu through frivolous suit.

    Fagbemi SAN further argued that the litigants engaged in gross abuse of court by their multiple cases against Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress in various courts without any reasonable cause of action.

  • Suit against Tinubu’s Inauguration: A/Court slams N40m fine on Owuru

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Thursday, slammed a fine of N40 million on a former Presidential candidate, Chief Ambrose Albert Owuru, for filing a frivolous suit to stop the inauguration of president-elect, Bola Ahmed Tinubu on May 29.

    The Appellate Court ordered the politician to pay the fine of N10 million each to President Muhammadu Buhari, Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Tinubu whom he made 1st to 4th defendants in the suit.

    Justice Jamil Tukur, who read the lead judgment of the three-man panel of the court, held that Owuru embarked on a gross abuse of court process by filing a frivolous, vexatious and irritating suit to provoke the respondents.

    The Court of Appeal held that the grievances of Owuru against the 2019 presidential election was not only strange but uncalled for because the grievances had been pursued up to Supreme Court and was dismissed for want of merit.

    Justice Tukur said that the action of Owuru to resuscitate the case that died since 2019 at the Supreme Court was aimed at making the lower courts to go on collision course with supremacy of the Apex Court.

  • APGA Nat’l Chair, Njoku files contempt charge against Oye

    The National Chairman of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) Chief Edozie Njoku has filed a contempt charge against Chief Victor Oye for disobeying a valid court order. 

    Recall that Justice  Mohammed Madugu of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Bwari, had on May 10, restrained Oye from parading himself as the National Chairman of APGA or holding any meetings or gatherings, be it NWC, NEC etc, Congresses or Convention in the name of APGA, pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice before the court. 

    The court also ordered INEC from recognizing Chief Oye as the National Chairman of APGA based on Supreme Court Judgement of 24th March, 2023.

    The application was filed by Otunba Camaru Lateef Ogidan, (National Vice Chairman South West of APGA) and Alhaji Mustapha Rabiu, National Welfare Officer of APGA under the Chief Edozie Njoku led APGA.

    At a resumed sitting on Wednesday, Mike Ajara, counsel to the APGA National Chairman Njoku, informed the court of the flagrant disobedience of it’s order by Oye and his group. 

    Ajara said the contempt proceedings were  filed and served on May 22, 2023, and “has dire implications on Oye and on the Ward, Local Government and State Congresses which has been organized by Oye and his men”. 

    Meanwhile, counsel to the defendants, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN informed the Court that they have filed Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal to strike out the Originating Summons for lack of jurisdiction. 

    While presenting his evidence of interlocutory appeal, Ikpeazu prayed Justice Madugu to refer the matter to the Appeal Court and wait for the superior Court to decide on the matter. 

    Reacting, Ajara  narrated how Oye, his assigns and privies violated the court order.

    Ajara faulted Ikpeazu’s appeal process and referred to it as ‘purported’ notice of appeal.

    Njoku’s lawyer asked the court to discountenance Ikpeazu’s submission because he did not secure leave of court.

    To buttress his point, Ajara availed the Court a copy of the letter from the Office of the Chief Registrar of the FCT Court Apo (Appeal Section) which denied ‘not receiving any application for compilation and transmission of Record of Proceedings in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/4068/2023’ to support his assertion. 

    Ajara explained that

    from the point of law, “if such application is submitted, due process demands that it is after 45days, without compliance, that Oye can approach the Appeal Court for any relief whatsoever.”

    Ajara told the Court that the Notice of Appeal was designed to derail and stampede the Court. 

    He reminded the Court that C.I. Mbaeri that represented Oye agreed with the Court’s decision of May 10, 2023 that parties, their assigns or privies should not hold meetings, Congresses or Convention of any sort pending the hearing of the substantive matter. 

    Citing extant notable authorities to buttress his point, he prayed the Court to continue with the business of the day, so that afterwards, the Ikpeazu will have ample materials to proceed on Appeal. 

    However, after taking submissions, the Judge reserved ruling on the issue of jurisdiction for June 2, 2023.

  • CJN inaugurates 39 new election petition tribunal members

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola has inaugurated 39 additional members of the 2023 Election Petition Tribunals.

    While swearing them in at the Supreme Court Complex in Abuja, Justice Ariwoola advised them to willingly submit themselves to the sanctity of the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution in the discharge of their judicial functions.

    Justice Ariwoola also charged them with the power to adjudicate on electoral disputes and take decisions in accordance with their convictions, which according to him, must be deeply rooted in law and not on sentiments or
    public opinion.

    He therefore urged them to be mindful of the oath they had taken and restore the confidence in the judiciary.

    “| pray the Almighty God will grant you the courage and wisdom to carry out this responsibility without faltering or failing. | congratulate you and look forward to hearing good commentaries on your conduct and sterling performance at the end of your assignment,” he said.