The Supreme Court has announced that it will deliver its judgment on May 26 regarding an appeal filed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the eligibility of President-elect Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), to participate in the presidential election held on February 25.
The appeal, registered as SC/CV/501/2023, questions the qualification of Tinubu and Vice President-elect Senator Kashim Shettima.
The PDP argues that the manner in which the APC and Tinubu nominated Shettima as a vice presidential candidate for the election violated several sections of the Electoral Act, 2022, as amended, including Sections 29(1), 33, 35, and 84(1) and (2).
According to the PDP, there is evidence to support the claim that Shettima was nominated for both the vice presidential position and the Borno Central senatorial seat, which they contend is in violation of the law.
In addition to seeking the disqualification of Tinubu and Shettima, the PDP has also requested the court to order the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to remove their names from the list of eligible candidates for the presidential election.
A panel of five Supreme Court justices, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, has approved the case for judgment after all parties involved presented their final arguments.
The PDP, represented by Mr. Joe Agi, SAN, urged the court to uphold their case by overturning the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
On the other hand, counsel for Tinubu and the APC, Mr. Babatunde Ogala, SAN, argued for the dismissal of the suit, stating that it lacks merit. The respondents also asserted that the case is time-barred due to the expiration of the allowed period for the hearing and determination of pre-election cases.
INEC, represented by Mr. Adebiyi Adetosoye, expressed support for Tinubu and the APC, urging the court to dismiss the appeal with substantial costs.
Furthermore, all the respondents questioned the legal standing (locus standi) of the PDP to initiate the action, as well as the court’s jurisdiction to intervene in matters concerning a political party’s candidate nomination, which they argued falls under the purview of internal party affairs.
