The apex court in its ruling has dismissed the appeals by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Atiku Abubakar and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart Peter Obi against the September 6 judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), affirming the election of President Bola Tinubu.
In the lead judgment read by Justice John Okoro, which the seven-man panel unanimously agreed with, the court resolved all the seven issues identified for determination against the appellants.
The seven-man panel held that the appeal was lacked merit and “is hereby dismissed”.
The other panel members are: Justices Uwani Abba-Aji, Mohammed Garba Lawal, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Tijani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), had appealed the judgement of the tribunal on seven grounds.
The apex court had earlier dismissed Atiku’s application to file fresh evidence against President Bola Tinubu.
Atiku had asked the court to allow him file the evidence obtained from Tinubu’s record at Chicago State University.
The PDP Presidential Candidate had argued that Tinubu submitted forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
But Tinubu objected on the grounds that Atiku made the plea outside the 180 days stipulated period.
In his ruling on Thursday, Justice Okoro, the chairman of the 7-man panel, said the time allotted to election petitions is fixed like the “Rock of Gibraltar” that cannot be extended or expanded.
“It has to be noted that the 180 days imposed is immutable and cannot be extended… Election petitions are sui generis and have their own peculiarities… the court below lost its jurisdiction to determine any matter concerning the petition after the 180 days which expired on September 17. This court cannot do what the lower court is no longer constitutionally allowed to do by section 285 of the constitution.”
“No amendment can be made introducing new facts not contained in the election petition as stated in section 132(7) of the Electoral Act. This application clearly runs foul of the Electoral Act.”
Details Shortly…
