Atiku, Obi in dilemma over plans to consolidate petitions against Tinubu
BY ANDREW OROLUA
The presidential candidates of People Democratic Party, PDP, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and his Labour Party counterpart, Peter Obi are in dilemma over plans by the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to consolidate their petitions along with the petition filed by Allied Peoples’ Movement, APM.
The court on Saturday dropped hint of the likelihood of consolidating the three surviving petitions challenging the election of Ahmed Bola Tinubu but counsel in Atiku asked for time to consult with their clients and lead counsel.
Justice Haruna Tsammani , the Presiding Justice of Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, said during the pre-hearing on Saturday that the court is tinkering with an idea of consolidating all the surviving three petitions challenging the conduct and outcome of the February 25 election that produced Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress(APC) as the president-elect.
He had drawn the attention of the lead counsel to the parties in the petitions to Paragraph 50 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, to merge all the petitions and determine them together.
Daily Times learnt yesterday that the development has put Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi the presidential candidates of People Democratic Party,PDP, and Labour Party, LP, respectively in a serious dilemma over whose petition should be chosen to be heard by the court if the idea is forced on them today.
A close associate and a confidant to Labour Party presidential candidate who did not want to be mentioned because he was not authorised to speak said their petition and the one filed by Atiku Abubakar are distinct from each other with different reliefs.
He said though both Atiku and Obi had questioned the validity of the declaration made by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, on March 1, 2023 that Tinubu won the election, Obi had asked the Court to declare INEC’s announcement a nullity on the grounds that Tinubu did not get 25 percent of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja as required by law. Atiku also did not receive that 25 percent of the total votes cast in FCT as required by law.
While Atiku anchored his petition on alleged irregularities perpetuated by the electoral body and APC in Zamfara, Sokoto, Kebbi States and other states, Obi’s petition bitterly complained of manipulations it’s votes in Lagos, Rivers States and some other states.
He said that emerging the petitions and hearing it together and allowing decision of the court to abide on the other would only be desirable if the election is void.
But where each of the petitioners had asked for a declaration that they won the election it would be extremely unfair and will amount to unfair hearing to shut the door against them on ground of consolidation.
When the hint was dropped by the Court on Saturday, lead counsel to Atiku and PDP, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, pleaded with the court for time to consult his client.
“My lords, we will not say that we have not looked at it, but perhaps it may require consultation with the other petitioners.
We, therefore, ask for a stand down or an adjournment so that we can explore the modalities since this is like a marriage which is a union between two consenting adults,” Uche, SAN, added.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, in its response, threw its weight behind the planned consolidation of the petitions.
“My lords, my personal conviction is that the provision is mandatory. It clearly stated that if there are two petitions or more that are filed to nullify the same election or return, it must be consolidated, unless the court directs otherwise,” Abubakar Mahmoud SAN told the court.
“We are happy with the provision of the law and we are also happy with whatever position your lordships will take with respect to this matter,” INEC’s lead counsel, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, further stated.
However, Mr. Roland Otaru, SAN, who appeared on behalf of the President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and the Vice President-elect, Senator Kashim Shettima, said he would need time to consult.
Recall that out of the five petitions initially filed challenging the declaration of Tinubu as winner of the election, two has-been withdrawn . The Action Alliance, AA, on May 8, at the commencement of pre -hearing session withdrew its case.
On its part, the Action Peoples Party, APP, two days later precisely on May 10, 2023 withdrew its petition; thus leaving the petitions filed by Atiku and PDP; Peter Obi and his Labour Party and the Allied Peoples’ Movement(APM) for hearing.
While Atiku’s joint petition with the PDP, form was marked CA/PEPC/05/2023, that of Obi and the LP was registered as CA/PEPC/03/2023.
The APM’s petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, is the only petition that joined Mr. Ibrahim Masari as respondent . Masari the incumbent governor of Katsina State who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, withdrew.
APM in its petition had alleged that Masari withdrawal invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
READ ALSO: Keep The NYSC Above Partisan Debacles
The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.
It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.
Note that the petitioners had filed their petitions separately claiming that they won the February 25 general election.
