Below are excerpts of what the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential and vice presidential candidates, Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Senator Kashim Ibrahim Shettima, respectively, told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) respecting the nomination of Shettima as vice presidential candidate.
This was in response to the petition filed at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal by Mr. Peter Gregory Obi and his Labour Party (LP).
Evidence deduced from two documents submitted by Senator Shettima to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Certified True Copies (CTC) had shown that Shettima was not qualified to contest the election.
Read also:
Tribunal: Tension in Tinubu’s camp as evidence shows Shettima not qualified to run
In their defence, Tinubu/Shettima informed the Election Petition Court that he is eminently qualified to contest the 2023 presidential election.
Read what they jointly told the Tribunal below:
Nomination of the 3rd Respondent
In their concerted efforts to fish for errors where none exists, the petitioners also alleged that the 3rd respondent suffers from multiple nomination, as a result of which his nomination by the 2nd respondent is invalid. It is their contention that as at the time of the said 3rd respondent’s nomination for the position of vice-presidential candidate, he was still a senatorial candidate for Bomo Central Senatorial District of Bomo State. These are obvious misplacement of facts and we state with the greatest respect to the petitioners that they have done this, either out of innocent ignorance of facts or clear mischief with the aim of misleading this Honourable Court; and this has been amply demonstrated in the course of evidence.
For the avoidance of doubt, however, the 3rd respondent who was ab initio, a senatorial candidate of the 4th respondent for Borno Central Senatorial District, had earlier on 6th July, 2022, vide a letter delivered to the 2nd respondent on the same date (Exhibit RA22), notified the party of his withdrawal from the election as the latter’s senatorial candidate for the 2023 general election. The said letter reads thus:
~~~
“I KASHIM SHETIMA of the above address, vying for Senator of Borno…. Hereby voluntarily withdraw my candidacy from the contest scheduled to hold on 25111 of FEBRUARY, 2023. My withdrawal is in the best interest of our great party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Thank you.
Name: KASHIM SHETIMA
Sign:
~~~
The 4th respondent, immediately upon this development notified INEC of its intention to conduct a fresh primary election for the replacement of the 3rd respondent, following his voluntary withdrawal. The primaries were eventually conducted and monitored by the 1st respondent, whereat, one Barr. Kaka Shehu Lawan emerged in the 3rd respondent’s stead as the 4th respondent’s senatorial candidate and his name and personal particulars were submitted to the 1st respondent. It was not until 14th July, 2023, that the 3rd respondent was eventually nominated as the 2nd respondent’s running mate as well as the 4th respondent’s vice-presidential candidate, before his name and personal particulars were later submitted to INEC the same day, vide Exhibit PA4.
Exhibit RA23-judgment of the Supreme Court
From the above chronicle of facts, it becomes glaring that both in law and in fact, as at 14th July, 2023, when the 3rd respondent’s name was submitted to 1NEC as the 4th respondent’s running mate, he had already (since 6Ih July, 2023) ceased to be the senatorial candidate of the 4th respondent for Borno Central Senatorial District and could not have been rightly alleged of having double/multiple nomination at any time.
This notwithstanding, one of the political parties who were then billed to contest the presidential election (the Peoples Democratic Party/PDP) approached the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/ ABJ/CS/1734/2022, whereat, it alleged that the 4th respondent’s nomination was invalid, on the ground, according to it, that he had concurrent nominations, both as the 4th respondent’s senatorial candidate for Borno Central Senatorial District and the 3’d respondent’s running mate.
The Federal High Court, coram: Ekwo, J. identified the fact that the said action bordered strictly on the 3rd respondent’s internal affairs and thus, proceeded to strike out the action on the ground that the PDP lacked the locus standi to interrogate the question. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/108/2022-Peoples Democratic Party – Independent National Electoral Commission & 3 Ors., this Honourable Court, coincidentally presided over by the Honourable Presiding Justice, the Honourable Justice H.S. Tsammani, affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court, while dismissing the appeal in its entirety.
A further appeal was lodged to the Supreme Court in SC/CV/501/2023-Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 3 Ors. Again, the appeal suffered the same fate as it did before this Honourable Court, but this time around, not without the apex court, as a policy court, putting the substance of the matter in proper perspective. The judgment of the apex court was admitted in evidence before this Honourable Court as Exhibit RA23.
The Supreme Court, in fact, made very critical findings in respect of the facts, identifying that the 3rd respondent did not at any point have multiple nominations. The apex court found that the 3rd respondent duly withdrew his candidacy at the Borno Central Senatorial District contest on 6th July, 2023, when he gave a notice of voluntary withdrawal to his political party, the 4th respondent, which said voluntary withdrawal, created a vacancy that was eventually filled through the submission of Barr. Kaka Shehu Lawan’s name to INEC as the 2nd respondent’s candidate for the senatorial election in Borno Central Senatorial District.
The Supreme Court which was apparently displeased by the frivolous nature of the action qua appeal, described same at page 39 of the leading judgment, as “an unnecessary fool’s errand.” Instructively, the above decision of the Supreme Court was reached prior to the opening of the petitioners’ case and it ought to have served as a cue for the petitioners to, with immense apology, immediately drop this leg of their claim; alas! this was not the case. For a glimpse of the court’s accurate statement of the fact, we respectfully refer this Honourable Court to page 11 of the decision of his Lordship, Ogunwumiju, JSC, where the court clarified thus:
“This Notice of withdrawal is dated 6/7/2022 and in accordance with the law was submitted to his party-2nd Respondent on that day. It can be argued factually that since the 4th Respondent was only obliged to hand over his withdrawal letter to his party which he did on 6/7/22, his withdrawal was complete on 6/7/22 and the party having accepted same, the erstwhile candidate could not renege from it even if he wanted to. It therefore follows that before the day of July when the 4th respondent was nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent was no longer the 2nd Respondent’s candidate for Borno Central Senatorial election.”
For clarity, the 3rd respondent referenced in that judgment, is the 4th respondent herein, while the 4th respondent therein, is the 3rd respondent herein. It is our very respectful but firm submission that the 3rd respondent is statutorily empowered to withdraw his candidacy for any office at all, in the manner allowed by the Electoral Act. This submission is anchored on the clear provision of section 31 of the Electoral Act. What is deducible from this provision of the Electoral Act is that the Electoral Act recognizes a person’s freedom of choice to elect whether to continue with participation in an electoral contest or to resile from participating in the contest. The wording of the provision is unambiguous as it says “a candidate may withdraw his or her candidature…”
As already indicated in the earlier part of this address, the judgment of the apex court, which has somewhat become the locus classicus on the subject, remains a reference point on critical themes of the discourse, and again, we shall refer to page 13 of the decision of his Lordship, Ogunwumiju, JSC., who restated the right of choice of the candidate and his political party to withdraw from an election in the following words:
“Where a candidate has already been nominated by a party for an elective position and the party desires to substitute that candidate for another, neither the Electoral Act nor the Constitution forbids such an act. In fact, the withdrawal of a candidate and substitution with another is permissible by the Electoral Act as already stated above.”
With the greatest respect to the petitioners, nothing can be more expressive of the 3rd respondent’s right to freedom of choice than the above pronouncement of the apex court. This unarguably accords with his constitutional right to hold and maintain opinions and the petitioners could not have seriously suggested that this right ought to have been impeded, particularly, when same is being exercised within the ambit of the law. Having settled the respondent’s right of withdrawal, it is equally necessary to appreciate the appropriate procedure for the exercise of such right of withdrawal.
Just like in the resolution of the preceding poser, the first port of call again, is the clear provision of section 31 of the Electoral Act, which prescribes that the appropriate mode is “by notice in writing signed by him (the 46′ respondent] and delivered personally by the candidate (the 4th respondent] to the political party that nominated him.” We have earlier in this address, reproduced Exhibit RA22, indicating the fact that as at 6th July, 2022, the 3’d respondent had not only written a notice which he personally signed, he had also delivered same, personally to the 4th respondent, clearly conveying his desire to withdraw from the senatorial contest and to resile from the earlier nomination.
Most respectfully, it must be appreciated that the decision to withdraw from participating in an election or to abdicate one’s nomination is a personal one and as such, it crystalizes upon the exercise of the statutorily imposed personal obligation. In effect, therefore, by 6th July, 2022, upon the personal delivery of the written notice personally signed by the 3rd respondent, to the 4th respondent, he automatically ceased to stand in the position of the 3rd respondent’s candidate for the senatorial election.
The necessary point to appreciate is that, at that point of the express manifestation of a contrary intention, the 3rd respondent could not be compelled, whether by the 1st or 4th respondent, to remain the candidate of the 4th respondent for the particular contest, and this point was repeatedly emphasized by the apex court in its judgment, particularly, at pages 4-6 of his Lordship, Agim. JSC’s judgment and pages 809 of his Lordship, Okoro, JSC’s judgment all in Exhibit RA23. The foregoing clearly demonstrates that a complete withdrawal is achieved once there is a submission of the notice in writing by the resiling candidate.
With this understanding, we respectfully submit that contrary to the suggestion of the petitioners through their petition, what took place on 15th July, 2022, as shown on INEC Form EC11C (Exhibit PA3), was not the withdrawal itself, but the conveyance of the development to INEC; and this is very glaring from the wordings of section 31, which states that “the political party shall convey such withdrawal to the Commission not later than 90 days to the election.” As eloquently expressed in the decision of the apex court above reproduced, it is extremely immaterial that the withdrawal was communicated to INEC on 15-7-2022, insofar as the said communication occurs not later than 90 days before election.
The petitioners’ misconception, of course, proceeded from the premise that the withdrawal was incomplete until same is communicated to INEC. Having, therefore, established in consonance with the Electoral Act and prevailing decision of the apex court that the petitioners are grossly wrong in their hypothesis, it invariably follows that the 3rd respondent’s subsequent nomination as vice-presidential candidate by the 2nd respondent on or about 141th July, 2022, does not suffer from any factual or legal impediment or malady, whatsoever. Same is in strict adherence with the provision of section 142(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and we urge the court to so hold.
On account of the foregoing, we respectfully urge this Honourable Court to resolve this issue in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners. Read more.
—
©Copyright 2023 News Band
(If you would like to receive CURRENT NEWS updates from News Band on WhatsApp, or Telegram, or wish to send eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to elstimmy@gmail.com and we will respond instantly. Follow us on twitter @News Band; like our Facebook page: News Band.)
