APM’s Case Against Tinubu: Presidential Tribunal Delays Judgement
- Presidential Tribunal Holds Verdict in APM’s Case Against Tinubu
- Judgement Reserved by Presidential Tribunal in APM’s Lawsuit Against Tinubu
- APM’s Case Against Tinubu: Presidential Tribunal Delays Judgement
- Presidential Tribunal Withholds Verdict on APM’s Lawsuit Targeting Tinubu
- Tinubu vs APM: Presidential Tribunal Postpones Ruling on Case
The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja has reserved its judgment on the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) seeking to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu. The five-member panel, headed by Justice Haruna Tsammani, announced the decision after all parties presented their final arguments.
The petition, identified as CA/PEPC/04/2023, lists the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the All Progressives Congress (APC), President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, and Mr. Kabiru Masari as the 1st to 5th Defendants, respectively.
The APM, represented by its lawyer Mr. Andrew Malgwi, SAN, urged the court to remove Tinubu from office and revoke the Certificate of Return issued to him by INEC. However, all the Defendants requested the dismissal of the case on grounds of incompetence.
President Tinubu, represented by a team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued that the APM’s petition lacked merit. He maintained that the party’s sole allegation, concerning Shettima’s double nomination by the APC, had already been decided by the Supreme Court. Tinubu stated that the petition failed to present a valid cause of action and lacked substance.
Both the APC’s counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, and INEC’s counsel, Mr. Steven Adehi, SAN, also urged the court to dismiss the petition. The APC defended Tinubu’s nomination and eligibility, while INEC supported the outcome of the election.
Following the presentations from all parties, the panel, led by Justice Tsammani, stated that it would inform the parties of the judgment date.
The APM concluded its case on June 21, after presenting a single witness to the court. The party’s petition argued that Masari’s withdrawal as the APC’s Vice-Presidential candidate invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy under Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution. They claimed that there was a three-week gap between Masari’s expressed intention to withdraw and the time Tinubu replaced him with Senator Shettima.
APM contended that Tinubu’s candidature had expired at the time he nominated Shettima. They further argued that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, making his subsequent withdrawal nullify the joint ticket.
The party requested the court to declare Shettima unqualified to run as the APC’s Vice-Presidential candidate on February 25, as it violated Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022. Additionally, they sought an order nullifying Tinubu’s votes in the presidential election and an order to invalidate the Certificate of Return issued by INEC.
🎓 Attend 2026 JAMB, Post-UTME, WAEC, and NECO GCE Tutorials
Get fully prepared with expert tutors, comprehensive study materials, and personalised academic guidance at Akahi Tutors.
📍 Located at 67, Oduduwa College Road, Off Sabo Junction, Ile-Ife.
📞 Call: 08038644328
for enrollment and accommodation reservation.
On May 30, the court suspended proceedings in response to Chief Olanipekun’s citation of a Supreme Court judgment. He argued that the appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against President Tinubu, which was dismissed, addressed the legality of his nomination by the APC. Olanipekun emphasized that the Supreme Court’s judgment covered the substance of APM’s petition, which focused on Shettima’s double nominations prior to the February 25 election.
