The Supreme Court has fixed Monday, October 23, 2023 to hear the appeal filed by the Presidential Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Atiku Abubakar, against the judgement which affirmed the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The court confirmed this on Thursday in hearing notices it sent out to the counsels for the respective parties.
Atiku had filed additional materials, including the recent deposition of the registrar of the Chicago State University, to support his arguments that president Tinubu submitted false academic claims in his INEC nomination form.
Tinubu’s lawyers, on the other hand, have asked the apex court to ignore the submissions of Atiku on the grounds that the statutory period for the submission of evidence has since closed.
The Supreme Court has until November 6, 2023, to give a final judgment on the appeal.
Aside Atiku, notices for the hearing were served on the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Chichi Ojei.
The notices signed by Zainab M. Garba in the office of the registrar, said by the Order 2 Rule 1(2) of the Supreme Court’s Rules 1985 as amended, the notice is deemed as sufficiently served on the parties.
The list of members of the panel to sit on the appeals include Justices Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, Lawal Garba, Helen M. Ogunwumiju, I.N. Saulawa, Tijjani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim.
Atiku had in his appeal maintained that the Presidential Election Petitions Court erred when they dismissed his petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove allegations of irregularities in the presidential election, 25 per cent requirement in the FCT, $60,000 forfeiture and failure of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to transmit the results from the polling units to the IREV using BVAS as provided in its laws and guidelines.
In the application by his counsel, Chris Uche (SAN), Atiku also requested leave to file academic records of Tinubu, which he alleged were forged.
On his part, Obi is contending that the tribunal’s refusal of his 18,088 polling units’ blurred results, was a miscarriage of justice.
Ojei of the APM, in her petition, is contending that Tinubu and his deputy, Kashim Shettima were disqualified on the grounds of invalid nomination for the offices.
But in his replies, Tinubu, through his counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) requested the court to hold that Atiku’s petition was an abuse of court process and lacked merit.
Tinubu described Obi’s petition as a jamboree and lacking in merit.
The Supreme Court on Thursday constituted a seven-member panel of justices to hear the appeal in the petitions filed by three presidential candidates challenging the outcome of the presidential election.
The notices for the hearing were also served on the presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar; that of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Chichi Ojei.
The notices signed by Zainab M. Garba in the office of the registrar, said by the Order 2 Rule 1(2) of the Supreme Court’s Rules 1985 as amended, the notice is deemed as sufficiently served on the parties.
The list of members of the panel to sit on the appeals include justices Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, Lawal Garba, Helen M. Ogunwumiju, I.N. Saulawa, Tijjani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim.
Atiku had in his appeal maintained that the Presidential Election Petitions Court erred when they dismissed his petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove allegations of irregularities in the presidential election, 25 percent requirement in the FCT, $$60,000 forfeiture and failure of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to transmit the results from the polling units to the IREV using BVAS as provided in its laws and guidelines.
In the application by his counsel, Chris Uche (SAN), Atiku also requested leave to file academic records of Tinubu, which he alleged were forged.
On his part, Obi is contending that the tribunal’s refusal of his 18,088 polling units’ blurred results, was a miscarriage of justice.
Ojei of the APM, in her petition, is contending that Tinubu and his deputy, Kashim Shettima were disqualified on the grounds of invalid nomination for the offices.
But in his replies, Tinubu, through his counsel, Wole Olanipekun , (SAN) requested the court to hold that Atiku’s petition was an abuse of court process and lacked merit.
On the other hand, Tinubu described Obi’s petition as a jamboree and lacking in merit. (vitalnewsngr.com)
