Connect with us


APM Files 10-ground Appeal Against Tinubu’s Election At Supreme Court



Tinubu Makes Surprise Appearance At NEC Meeting

The Supreme Court has received ten grounds of appeal from the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), appealing the Presidential Election Petition Court’s ruling and requesting that President Bola Tinubu’s victory be declared invalid.

The APM is requesting that the Supreme Court overturn the judgement of the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC) due to numerous legal errors in its notice of appeal, which was submitted by its new counsel, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume.

News About Nigeria reports that APM asked the apex court to grant the appeal and rule that Tinubu was ineligible to run as the APC’s presidential candidate because he had broken Section 142 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

As these requirements are prerequisites to being elected to the office of President, it was stated that sections 131 and 142 (1) of the 1999 Constitution are inextricably linked and neither can be limited as a pre-election matter.

The main claim of the appellant’s petition—rather than being based solely on nomination—was that President Tinubu ran for office without having a valid running mate.

The party further stated that Tinubu’s election and return were invalid due to Ibrahim Kabir Masari’s withdrawal and the passing of the 14-day window allowed for changing, withdrawing, or dead candidates under Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2022.

The PEPC, in accordance with Section 239(1) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) Constitution, abdicated its duty and jurisdiction to hear and decide APM’s inquiry regarding whether President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima were “validly elected” to their respective positions.

According to APM, being eligible to run for office counts as being “validly elected,” and a valid election also includes meeting the Constitution’s minimum requirements for eligibility and disqualification.

It claimed that the court below used a technical elevation pre-election issue defence to sidestep the important issue of being validly elected.