TheCable

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has asked the presidential election petition tribunal to dismiss petitions filed by three political parties against the return of its candidate, Bola Tinubu, as president-elect.

The three political parties are the Action Alliance (AA), Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and Action Peoples Party (APP).

AA, in its petition, sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the APC, Tinubu and Hamza Al-Mustapha, its factional presidential candidate.

The party averred that Al-Mustapha was not the preferred candidate, thus, the party was excluded from the poll.

In the petition marked CA/PEPC/04/2023, the APM joined INEC, APC, Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and Kabir Masari, who stood as vice-presidential placeholder during the primaries before he was substituted with Shettima.

The APM is contending that Tinubu and Shettima were not qualified to contest the election on the grounds of the alleged double nomination of the vice president-elect.

In the third petition marked CA/PEPC/02/2023, APP is challenging the outcome of the presidential election.

The APC’s responses to the petitions were filed on Sunday night by Thomas Ojo, a member of the party’s legal team led by Lateef Fagbemi.

The ruling party argued that the grounds on which the AA brought its petition “is not meritorious and facts in support of same are not availing to validate the petitioners’ claims and/or purported right to present the instant petition”.

“Issues of nomination, sponsorship and exclusion of candidates for an election are issues that precede the conduct of an election and are preelection matters that cannot be raised or canvased before an election tribunal,” the APC said.

“Facts in support of the petition speaks to intra-party issues, pre-election disputes and administrative actions of INEC triable by federal high court under Section 285 of the Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria as altered by the 4th alteration act and outside the original jurisdiction of the court of appeal being a presidential election petition tribunal.”

Urging the court to dismiss the petition by the APM, the APC queried the legal capacity of the party to challenge the mode it adopted in nominating its candidates.

“The petitioner does not fall under the category of persons that can challenge the internal working operation of the 2nd respondent (APC) regarding the nomination and sponsorship of the 2nd respondent’s candidates for the election,” the ruling party said.

The APC equally faulted the competence of the petition by the APP, arguing that the grounds on which it was founded are not sustainable.

The party described the petition as frivolous and an attempt to waste the court’s time.