The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) sitting in
Abuja on Friday further adjourned hearing in the petition of the Allied Peoples
Movement (APM) against the candidacy of President Bola Tinubu’s running mate,
Kashim Shettima, after its lawyer, Yakubu Maikaswa, insisted on hearing his case.
The PEPT had on June 2 adjourned the petitioner’s case to today,
following parties’ inability to access certified true copies of a Supreme Court
judgment that touched on Tinubu’s nomination of Shettima.
APM had sued the Independent National Electoral Commission, All
Progressives Congress, Tinubu, Shettima and APC’s initial Vice-Presidential
placeholder, Kabiru Masari, alleging that Shettima while being fielded by the
APC as its Borno South Senatorial District candidate, accepted to run as Vice
Presidential candidate to Tinubu.
The petitioners claimed the development was contrary to the
provisions of the Electoral Act.
But before the June 2 proceedings, Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole
Olanipekun SAN, told the five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani that
there was a subsisting Supreme Court judgment that settled a similar issue
bordering on Shettima’s nomination.
But on the next adjourned date, parties said they were yet to
access the said judgment.
The petitioner had asked for adjournment to today to give lawyers
more time to get the CTC of the judgment.
At the resumed sitting on Friday, Maikaswa informed the court
that he has not been able to get the said apex court judgment.
He said even the lawyers representing Tinubu and APC, who
brought the issue, have been unable to get the judgment or even furnish him
with a copy.
The petitioner said based on the development, he wanted his
petition to be heard.
He subsequently asked for further adjournment to hear his case
on the ground that he would be going for a “procedure” next week.
“My lords, we are still
where we were at the last adjourned date, we have not been able to get the
certified true copies of the Supreme Court judgment.
“In view of that we will be applying for a date for hearing of our petition. We respectfully apply for a hearing date,” the petitioner said.
INEC counsel, A.B. Mahmoud SAN, did not object to the call for
an adjournment, saying “it is their case.”
APC lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi SAN, replied to the petitioner’s
lawyer, insisting he had the burden to provide the Supreme Court document.
But Justice Tsammani corrected Fagbemi on his position.
0 Comments