Connect with us

Politics

Dismiss Atiku’s appeal, it’s abuse of court process, Tinubu tells Supreme Court

Published

on

President Tinubu and Atiku Abubakar
Spread the love
President Bola Tinubu has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal filed by candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the February 25 presidential election, Atiku Abubakar against his declaration as president.

Tinubu predicated his request on the grounds that Atiku’s appeal seeking to overturn the judgment of the presidential election tribunal, which affirmed his victory at the presidential poll, was lacking in merit and an abuse of court process.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had on March 1, declared Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC), winner of the presidential poll, having been convinced that he won a majority of the lawful votes cast at the presidential election.

Dissatisfied, Atiku on March 21, lodged his petition at the tribunal, seeking amongst others, the nullification of Tinubu’s election over alleged irregularities, malpractices, and non-compliance with electoral laws amongst others.

But, the tribunal in its unanimous judgment delivered on September 6, upheld the declaration of Tinubu as winner of the presidential poll.

The five member panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, pointed out that Atiku’s petition failed to prove allegations contained therein and subsequently dismissed the petition for lacking in merit.

Maduka College Advert

Still not satisfied, Atiku on September 18, asked the apex court to set aside the judgment of the tribunal for being perverse in arriving at the conclusion that he did not prove his case.
He predicated his appeal upon 35 grounds upon which he is asking the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the tribunal.

He has also brought in fresh and additional evidence to prove that Tinubu ought not to be on the ballot in the first place on the grounds that he forged his Chicago State University (CSU) certificate he submitted to INEC in aid of his qualification for the presidential election.
Relying on Section 137 of the Constitution, Atiku also urged the apex court to sack Tinubu for lying on oath, regarding his academic qualification.

However, in response to the appeal marked SC/CV/935/2023; with petition number: CA/PEPC/05/2023, Tinubu through his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued that from the “clear position of the law”, Atiku and his party in their joint appeal have not, “demonstrated any reason why this Honourable Court should disturb any of the findings of the lower court, which, with all modesty are rooted in law and perfect demonstration of scholarship.”

Tinubu, in his response, challenged the competence of the grounds of appeal contained in Atiku’s Notice of Appeal, as well as the issues formulated in the appellants’ brief.

He raised seven issues for determination by the apex court, which included, having regard to the appellants’ pleadings before the lower court, vis-a-vis the provisions of paragraphs 4(1)(d)(2) and 16(1)(a) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 and Order 13 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, coupled with consistent judicial authorities on the fundamental nature of pleadings, whether the lower court did not rightly strike out offensive paragraphs of the petition and petitioners’ reply to the respondents’ respective replies?

“In view of the clear provisions of section 285(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), section 132(7) of the Electoral Act, 2022, paragraph 4(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 and the settled line of judicial authorities on the subject, whether the lower court did not rightly strike out the witness statements on oath and expunge the evidence of PW 12, PW 13, PW 14, PW 15, PW 16, PW17, PW18, PW19, PW2 I , PW23, PW24, PW25, PW26 and PW27?

“Was the lower court not right when it upheld the respondents’ objection to the admissibility of the documents tendered by the appellants and struck out the said documents?“Considering the clear provision of Section 135 of the Electoral Act, the pleadings and the reliefs sought by the petitioners/appellants as well as the admissible evidence before the lower court, whether the lower court was not right in dismissing the appellants’ petition?

“In view of the circumstances of the petition before the lower court, the terse evidence adduced by the appellants and the state of the law on the respective subjects, whether the lower court could rightly be accused of bias by the appellants?” he asked.

On issue one, Tinubu claimed that by all extant relevant laws, INEC has/had the prerogative of determining the mode and manner for the transmission of election results and the lower court was perfectly in order when it so held.

Atiku, had in his petition, alleged substantial non-compliance because INEC failed to transmit election results to the IREV in real time, adding that failure to do so automatically nullified the result of the election.

“The lower court, in deciding the issue, took a painstaking consideration of the binding judgment of the Federal High Court, per Nwite, J., in FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022-Labour Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission, delivered on January 23, 2023, which was tendered before it and admitted as Exhibit.”

Tinubu stated that all the provisions of the regulations created the alternative between electronic transmission and transfer, with the use of the article “or”.

On issue two, which bordered on a candidate securing 25% votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) before being declared winner, Tinubu submitted that the wordings of sections 134 and 299 of the Constitution were clear and urged the apex court to hold that “any election where the electorate exercise their plebiscite, there is neither a ‘royal’ ballot nor ‘royal’ voter.

“It added “that residents of the FCT do not have any special voting right over residents of any other state of the federation, in a manner similar to the concept of preferential shareholding in Company Law. We, therefore, urge the court to resolve this issue in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.”

On issues three to five, which bordered on the striking out of certain paragraphs as well as witnesses’ statement of the petitioners/ appellants, Tinubu said the tribunal was right in holding that the affected paragraphs were offensive and should be removed.

“We, accordingly, urge this Honourable Court to affirm the decision of the lower court, while dismissing this appeal in its entirety, as same is lacking in merit and bona fide.

“We cannot draw the curtain on this brief, without drawing the Supreme Court’s attention to another hypocritical relief being claimed by the appellants in their petition, and more particularly, that in their supplication before the Supreme Court, they are asking that their reliefs be granted.

“The alternative relief (e) put forth by the appellants at the lower court reads thus: ‘An Order directing the 1’ Respondent to conduct a second election (run-off) between the 1’ Petitioner and the 2’ Respondent.’
“Undoubtedly, this relief has exposed the pretentious attitude of the appellants, both at prosecuting their case at the lower court and before this Honourable Court.

“Here are the same set of appellants alleging non-qualification of the respondent, via the backdoor, that is, through their reply, on the one hand, and on the other hand, praying this Honourable Court to nullify the presidential election of February 25, 2023, and direct a second election between the 1st petitioner and the respondent.

“The logical conclusion from this approbative and reprobative posture of the appellants is that deep down in their hearts, they are convinced that the respondent won the election, but have decided to embark on this voyage of abuse of court processes.

“Lastly, may we draw the attention of the Supreme Court to the fact that at the lower court, this set of appellants did not ask for any relief that could inure to the benefit of the appellants in their final written address, as all issues formulated by them and prayers also sought by them before the lower court were targeted at the respondent, without any one of those reliefs designed for their benefit.

“May we quickly refer the court to the 4 issues formulated for determination in their final written address at page 6974 (vol. 9) of the record, and the concluding part of the address in paragraph 6.01 (a), (b), (c) and (d) on pages 7004¬7005 (vol. 9) of the record.

“Everything put together or summarised, this appeal is a further demonstration of the abusive nature to which the appellants have subjected court processes. The Supreme Court is urged to dismiss it.” (Arise News)

Politics

Stakeholders demand sanctions against A’Court’s Justice Lifu, as Mark warns FG on political manipulation

Published

on

ADC National Chairman, David Mark
Spread the love

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress and four other parties on Monday, ADC National Chairman Senator David Mark stated the judiciary is on trial and warned the Federal Government against political manipulation.

Stakeholders also called for sanctions against Justice Peter Lifu for flouting a superior court order, as the ADC assures supporters they will remain on the ballot.

Political parties and stakeholders affected by the Federal High Court’s controversial deregistration order welcomed the Court of Appeal’s decision to stay the execution of the judgment.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja had on Tuesday ordered a stay of execution of the judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister the ADC, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party, while delivering a stinging rebuke to Justice Lifu for flouting a May 22 appellate court order restraining him from delivering the ruling.

In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, a three-member panel led by Justice A. B. Mohammed condemned Justice Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for flouting a May 22 order that directed him to suspend proceedings before him, describing his conduct as the gravest form of judicial misconduct.

“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution,” the panel held.

Maduka College Advert

The appellate court went further, invoking a Supreme Court precedent to characterise Justice Lifu’s conduct in the harshest terms.

“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is the highest form of judicial impertinence,” the panel declared, adding that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acted in such a manner “is unfit for the bench as it amounts to judicial rascality.”

The court said it had a duty to assert its supervisory authority over lower courts and protect the integrity of the judicial hierarchy.

“Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This court has supervisory authority over the trial court. This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are obeyed. The application for stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed,” the panel ruled.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Lifu, had on Monday ordered INEC to deregister the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party and Zenith Labour Party, ruling that the five parties failed to meet the constitutional performance thresholds under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, specifically, requirements related to securing at least 25 per cent of votes in certain states or winning seats in the 2023 general elections.

Earlier in Tuesday’s proceedings, INEC told the appellate court it was stunned by Justice Lifu’s decision to deliver the judgment, disclosing that the commission only learned of the ruling through media reports rather than any official notification.

INEC’s lead counsel, Mr Haliru Mohammed, told the panel that the commission had been aware of the appellate court’s May 22 order restraining the lower court from delivering the judgment, which had originally been reserved for June 5.

“We were not aware of any notice from the court regarding the delivery of the judgment. We only saw it as breaking news in the media. We therefore do not oppose the application of the appellant to stay the execution of the judgment,” Mohammed submitted.

The commission also aligned itself with the notice of appeal filed by the affected political parties.

Counsel to the ADC, Mr Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, told the court that Justice Lifu communicated the judgment’s delivery to the party via WhatsApp, a disclosure that drew visible reactions from the bench.

Aruwa described the lower court’s conduct as an invitation to anarchy and urged the appellate court to invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution to sanction the judge.

“The action of the trial judge calls for swift and extraordinary measures from this court. We have come to the stage where this court should press the reset button.

“We urge this court to take disciplinary steps by immediately suspending that judgment. This court has the power to protect its own integrity. We pray this court suspends the judgment immediately without further delay,” he added.

APC reacts

Reacting to the appellate court’s decision, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the ruling offered a measure of hope for the judiciary’s credibility, though he was careful not to celebrate unreservedly.

“It indicates that the judiciary may still redeem itself. We are cautiously delighted but we insist that it shouldn’t have happened in the first place,” Abdullahi said in a telephone interview.

He called on the National Judicial Council to take urgent steps to rid the bench of judges whose conduct brought the institution into disrepute.

“We, therefore, hope that the judicial council will take urgent steps to purge the bench of judges who bring the judicial institution to disrepute,” he said.

The National Leader of the Action Peoples Party, Ikenga Ugochinyere, was more emphatic in his welcome of the ruling, describing it as a vindication of the party’s position from the outset and calling on the NJC to weed out what he termed controversial judges.

“There was no need to panic in the first place, and, so, this ruling is a vindication of our position from the get-go,” Ugochinyere said.

“We call on the NJC to weed out controversial justices who say one thing in the morning and another in the evening. These are the bad eggs giving the judiciary a bad name,” he added.

Ugochinyere raised broader concerns about public confidence in the justice system, warning that judicial inconsistency was eroding citizens’ respect for court pronouncements.

“Court pronouncements are supposed to be respected by citizens, particularly because they come from institutions established by law. But when people begin to hide behind technicalities, it raises concerns about the integrity of those institutions.

“How do we expect citizens to obey court judgments when many people no longer see justice as blind, but rather as something influenced by individuals and personal interests? That is the challenge before us,” the APP leader added.

He also noted that the controversy surrounding Justice Lifu’s ruling had sparked frustration across the country, with some of the anger directed at the presidency.

“This situation has generated a lot of reactions across the country. Many people are directing their frustrations at the President. Perhaps there is a need for greater clarity so that Nigerians understand exactly what is happening,” Ugochinyere said.

He nevertheless described Tuesday’s outcome as a victory for democracy and the rule of law.

“What happened today (Tuesday) is a victory, not just for democracy, but for the rule of law. We are happy because the courts have once again demonstrated their relevance in our democratic process,” he said.

Other parties speak

The Acting National Chairman of the Coalition of United Political Parties, Peter Ameh, took a philosophical approach in welcoming the ruling, invoking the words of the philosopher Edmund Burke to frame the significance of the appellate court’s intervention.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” Ameh said.

He warned that what he described as hostile executive rascality and brazen judicial overreach must not be allowed to stand.

Also, the ADC presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar said in a statement posted on his X handle that the ruling was a positive development, noting with particular significance that INEC itself had initiated the application for the stay .

“I welcome the Court of Appeal’s decision to stay the execution of the Federal High Court judgment seeking the deregistration of our great party, the ADC, and four other political parties. It is particularly significant that INEC itself initiated the application for the stay,” he wrote.

Atiku, Mark protest

The former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar also criticised what he described as judicial contradictions in the ongoing legal dispute, warning that such developments had placed the judiciary under intense public scrutiny.

“The disturbing spectacle of judicial contradictions and politically charged rulings playing out in our courts has placed the judiciary under intense public scrutiny. As ADC National Chairman, Sen. David Mark, rightly observed, the judiciary itself is now on trial,” Atiku said.

He warned against any attempt to weaponise the courts against Nigeria’s democratic institutions.

“Any attempt to undermine Nigeria’s hard-won democracy through judicial manipulation is a grave danger to the Republic. If our democracy suffers further injury, history will demand accountability from those entrusted with dispensing justice,” he said.

Following the judgment given by Justice Lifu, the National Judicial Council has been urged to investigate Justice Peter Lifu over his decision to deliver judgment in a case that was already before the Court of Appeal.

The civil society organisation, Tap Initiative for FOR Citizens’ Development, on Tuesday in a statement called on the leadership of the judiciary to immediately investigate Justice Lifu over the judgment.

The call follows concerns over the alleged disregard for the hierarchy of courts and implications such actions could have on the judiciary and Nigeria’s democracy as the country moves closer to the 2027 general elections.

Justice Lifu had on Monday ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister five political parties over their alleged breach of Section 225(A) of the Constitution.

However, the judgment was reportedly delivered despite an order staying proceedings issued by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on May 22.

The decision has since attracted criticism from several quarters, with critics accusing the judge of undermining democratic principles.

In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Mbasekei Martin Obono, the group urged the NJC to, among other things, “Determine whether the decision was delivered in disregard of pending appellate proceedings and a subsisting order of stay;

“Examine possible breaches of the judicial code of conduct; Take appropriate disciplinary action if misconduct is established; and

Reaffirm the authority of appellate courts and the supremacy of due process within the judiciary”.

The group recalled that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, had consistently emphasised the need for accountability, discipline and ethical conduct within the judiciary.

It disclosed that it had formally petitioned the CJN, in her capacity as Chairman of the NJC, seeking an investigation and possible disciplinary action against Justice Lifu.

According to the group, the petition presents an opportunity to reinforce the principles of accountability and demonstrate that judicial independence is not incompatible with responsibility.

“Tap Initiative expresses grave concern that at the time the said judgement was delivered, there were subsisting appellate proceedings before the Court of Appeal in respect of the same subject matter in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/569/2026. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal had issued an Enrolment Order expressly granting a stay of proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2025, being the very proceedings in which the Federal High Court subsequently proceeded to deliver judgment.

“This development raises profound constitutional and procedural concerns, as it appears that a valid order of stay and active appellate proceedings were in force at the material time. If established, this situation would constitute a serious affront to the doctrine of judicial hierarchy and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal within Nigeria’s constitutional order.

“Tap Initiative emphasizes that the integrity of Nigeria’s justice system depends fundamentally on strict adherence to judicial hierarchy, procedural discipline, and respect for appellate authority. Any deviation from these principles risks creating conflicting judicial outcomes, eroding legal certainty, and undermining public confidence in the courts”, he said.

The group stressed that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common citizen, arguing that its legitimacy is sustained not only by constitutional authority but also by unwavering public confidence in its fairness, discipline and respect for the rule of law.

It therefore called on the NJC to treat the matter with the urgency and seriousness it deserves in the interest of justice, democracy and national stability.

Meanwhile, the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, Senator David Mark, on Tuesday declared that the Nigerian judiciary, rather than the opposition party, is the institution facing scrutiny over the controversy surrounding the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties.

Speaking at the ADC Strategic Communications Retreat in Abuja, the former Senate President accused the judiciary of actions capable of undermining public confidence in the nation’s democratic process, while questioning the conduct of Justice Peter Lifu in matters relating to the party.

According to Mark, the outcome of the controversy will test the credibility of the judiciary and the ability of the National Judicial Council to address concerns arising from the case.

“The ADC is not on trial. Rather, it is the judiciary that is on trial and the nation is waiting to see how the National Judicial Council is going to handle this precarious situation,” he said.

The ADC chairman expressed concern over what he described as unprecedented judicial actions, alleging that Justice Lifu ignored an order of the Court of Appeal directing a stay of proceedings in the matter.

He said it was difficult to comprehend how a judge could be involved in actions that appeared to contradict existing court directives.

Mark further alleged that the judge issued conflicting decisions regarding the status of the party within a short period.

“It is strange that a judge can order the Independent National Electoral Commission to pronounce a party dead and in less than 24 hours put the same party on trial,” he said.

The remarks come amid growing political tension over recent legal challenges affecting opposition parties ahead of preparations for the next electoral cycle.

Despite the legal setback, Mark urged party members not to lose confidence in the ADC, insisting that the party would emerge stronger from the dispute.

“Like I have said previously, our members should not worry about the shenanigans of the ruling party. We will go through all these turbulence because we are up to the task. By the time we are through all these, ADC will come out stronger,” he stated.

The former Senate President also accused the ruling All Progressives Congress APC of attempting to weaken opposition forces through distractions, claiming that the governing party was struggling to defend its record in office.

He alleged that the President Bola Tinubu-led government is diverting attention from its challenges by targeting opposition platforms.

Addressing party communicators at the retreat, Mark charged them to craft messages capable of expanding the ADC’s appeal across political divides, including among members of the ruling party.

He challenged the communications team to develop persuasive narratives that would attract more Nigerians to the ADC project. (PUNCH)

Continue Reading

Politics

Ex-Gov Ugwuanyi reaffirms support for APC’s Ikeje Asogwa, disowns PDP candidate

Published

on

Ex-Gov Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi with APC Enugu North senatorial candidate, Ikeje Asogwa (left)
Spread the love

Former Governor of Enugu State, Rt. Hon. Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, has dismissed as false and misleading reports circulating on social media alleging that he is supporting the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Barr. Nestor Ezeme, in the forthcoming Enugu North Senatorial District bye-election.

In a statement personally signed by him, Ugwuanyi described the claim as fake news orchestrated by political mischief makers seeking to gain undue advantage ahead of the poll scheduled for Saturday, June 20, 2026.

The former governor, who is now a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), stated that he has no reason to support a candidate from another political party, stressing that his loyalty remains with the APC and all its candidates.

“As a committed member of the APC, I have no business supporting the candidate of another party. My support is firmly and unequivocally for all APC candidates, from the President down to the Councillor,” Ugwuanyi stated.

He specifically reaffirmed his support for the APC candidate in the Enugu North Senatorial bye-election, Chief Ikeje Asogwa, noting that his position on the contest has never been in doubt.

“I stand by Chief Ikeje Asogwa and my party, the APC. Any claim to the contrary is fake news and should be dismissed and disregarded by the public,” he said.

Maduka College Advert

Ugwuanyi further alleged that the rumours were being spread by individuals bent on deceiving the electorate through name-dropping and misinformation.

“These false reports are the handiwork of mischief makers who have resorted to propaganda and deception in pursuit of electoral gains. The people should not be misled,” he added.

The former governor therefore urged members of the public and supporters across the Enugu North Senatorial District to disregard the reports and remain focused on the issues ahead of the election.

Continue Reading

Politics

Kenneth Okonkwo dumps Atiku over appointment of VP candidate from South-South

Published

on

Kenneth Okonkwo
Spread the love

Nollywood actor and politician Kenneth Okonkwo has withdrawn his support for former Vice President Atiku Abubakar following the announcement of former Transport Minister, Rotimi Amaechi, as his vice presidential running mate.

Okonkwo made his position known in a statement issued on his X (formerly Twitter) account on Monday, shortly after reports emerged that Atiku had selected Amaechi as his running mate for the 2027 presidential election.

The former Labour Party chieftain said he could not, in good conscience, campaign for any presidential ticket that excludes the South-East from both the presidential and vice-presidential positions.

“If it is confirmed that he has chosen a candidate from the South-South, I wish him well. I am not favourably disposed to campaigning for any presidential ticket that does not have a person of South-East origin as President or Vice in 2027,” Okonkwo stated.

His remarks effectively distance him from Atiku’s campaign and signal a major crack within the opposition coalition ahead of the 2027 general election.

Okonkwo argued that the South-East has remained politically disadvantaged since the return of democracy in 1999, noting that the region has neither produced a President nor a Vice President during the period.

Maduka College Advert

“This Geo-Political Zone has neither produced a President or Vice President since 1999. To deny the South-East the opportunity to produce the President or Vice President in ADC in 2027 will amount to perpetuating the marginalisation,” he said.

The lawyer and political activist expressed disappointment over reports that the vice-presidential slot may have been ceded to the South-South despite the sacrifices made by leaders from the South-East in building and sustaining the coalition.

“I heard from the social media that ADC has picked its vice presidential candidate from the South-South. If this is true, it is unfortunate, as this will continue the crude marginalisation of the South-East,” he said.

Okonkwo recalled that the ADC was founded by former National Chairman, Chief Ralphs Nwosu, an indigene of the South-East, and argued that the party’s coalition arrangement was never intended to sideline the region.

“The ADC was founded by Ralphs Nwosu from the South-East in 2005. He made the sacrifice to give up the party in 2025 for the coalition to usher in a better Nigeria. He couldn’t have made that sacrifice to marginalise his own people,” he stated.

According to him, the South-East had already relinquished key positions within the coalition and deserved consideration for the vice-presidential slot.

“I did not join the coalition to assist in the further marginalisation of my own people. I am of the opinion that if we made a sacrifice to give up the National Chairman and the President, it will amount to unpardonable injustice to deny us the Vice President in 2027,” he said.

Okonkwo further disclosed that his only request to Atiku was to demonstrate his commitment to the political inclusion of the South-East by choosing a running mate from the region.

“The only favour I asked Atiku Abubakar, who openly declared that he is the pathway to the presidency of the South-East, is to show it by choosing someone from the South-East to be his Vice,” he stated.

He maintained that his political involvement has always been driven by the desire to build a Nigeria where no region, ethnic group or individual is marginalised.

“I joined politics to fight for a better Nigeria where no region, Geo-Political Zone, or person will be marginalised,” he added.

His declaration is expected to fuel fresh debate over zoning, equity and power-sharing within the opposition coalition as preparations intensify for the 2027 presidential election.

Continue Reading

Trending

Maduka College Advert