The Court of Appeal on Monday granted the request of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) to proceed with its case before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), challenging the victory of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the 25 February Presidential poll. The APM is querying the legality of the joint ticket of President Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettma, arguing among others, that Vice President Shettma had double nomination, which it claimed rendered the joint ticket invalid.

The PEPC had, on May 30 suspended proceedings in the case to enable parties obtain and study a judgment delivered on 26 May by the Supreme Court, dismissing a case filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in which the party sought to void the joint ticket of President Tinubu and Vice President Shettma as presidential and vice presidential candidates of the APC in the last election.

In the matter in refrence, the PDP had, in its case, claimed that Vice President Shettma violated the Electoral Act by allowing himself to be nominated twice for two different offices – Borno Central Senatorial district and Vice President, and prayed the court to disqualify Tinubu and Shettima.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court held among others, that Shettima was not nominated twice and that a political party lacked the locus standi to challenge the process adopted by another political in nominating its candidates.

Lead counsel to President Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettma (listed as the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the petition by the APM), Chief Wole Olanipekun Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), on May 30, drew the court’s attention to the Supreme Court judgment and argued that, in view of the apex court’s finding in the PDP case, there was no longer issues to be determined by the PEPC in the petition by the APM.

Lead counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC),Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN agreed with Chief Olanipekun.

But, the petitioner’s lawyer, Mr. Shehu Abubakar denied knowledge of the judgment and sought time to be allowed to access the judgement, study it and decide what further steps to take.

When parties returned to court on Monday, a new lawyer, who represented the APM, Mr. G. A. Idiagbonya informed the court that he got a copy of the judgment from Prince Fagbemi. “We have gone through the judgment and we are of the opinion that we can still proceed with the petition”, Mr. Idiagbonya said and prayed the court for an adjournment to a later date for trial.

He said the petitioner intends to call a witness, but needed time to enable it retrieve some documents from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), with which it planned to conduct its case.

Lawyers to the respondents, including Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) for INEC, Chief Wole Olanipekun and Chief Charles Uwensuyi-Edosomwan (SAN), did not object to Mr. Idiagbonya’s request.

Chief Olanipekun said he has also read the judgment. He however, insisted that the petitioner must be allowed to return the next day for trial, a request Mr. Idiagbonya objected to, insisting that he needed time to get the documents from INEC.

In his ruling, Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned till Wednesday for trial.

Also on Monday, three Presiding Officers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that the refusal of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) to transmit the presidential election results on election day frustrated their jobs.

The Presiding Officers admitted that the results of the Senate and the House of Representatives were transmitted unhindered and that the problems of technical glitches arose at the point of transmitting only the presidential poll results.

Testifying on subpoena at the on-going hearing of petitions challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential election, the three witnesses admitted that the election process went well until the period the BVAS machines refused to work.

The three witnesses are Miss Janet Nuhu Turaki, Mr. Christopher Bulus Ardo and Miss Victoria Sani who served as INEC’s Presiding Officers at Yobe, Bauchi and Katsina States respectfully.

They had been summoned by the Court through the joint application of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Alhaji Abubakar Atiku to appear before it and give accounts of their experiences in relation to results transmission during the last presidential election.

Miss Turaki who first testified in the petition filed by former Vice President Abubakar Atiku against the election said that the accreditation of voters was successful but that the process became frustrating at the point of uploading of the election results. She emphasized that while results of the National Assembly election was transmitted smoothly, that of the presidential poll failed and refused to work throughout the day.

The witness, however, informed the Court that the collated results in the forms EC8A were signed by the party agents and herself as INEC’S Presiding Officer.

In his own evidence, Mr. Ardo told the Court that he felt unfulfilled in his assignment with INEC on the election because he could not transmit the presidential election results as required by law.

In her evidence, Miss Sani said she could not remember the candidate that won the presidential poll in Katsina state but insisted that all did not end well due to the inability to transmit the presidential aspect of the February 25 election.

Monday’s proceedings were conducted by Mr.Eyitayo Jegede SAN for Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and PDP as petitioners, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud SAN for INEC, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Chief Charles Edosomwen SAN for the All Progressives Congress APC.

Meanwhile, the Presiding Justice of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani has fixed June 20 for continuation of hearing in the petition.