The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the appeal filed by the Allied Peoples Movement, (APM) challenging the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) which affirmed President Bola Tinubu’s victory.
The court dismissed APM’s petition based on pre-hearing motions filed by INEC, APC, and Shettima.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the appeal filed by the Allied Peoples Movement, (APM) challenging the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) which affirmed President Bola Tinubu’s victory.
Justice Inyang Okoro, leading six other justices of the apex court dismissed the appeal saying that hearing it would amount to “a waste of the precious time of the court.”
The APM had in the appeal prayed the court to hold that the PEPC misconceived the material facts before it when it struck out its undefended petition against Tinubu’s victory.
The party asked the court to hold that the withdrawal of Kabiru Masari from the race, by operation of law, amounted to automatic withdrawal and invalidation of the candidature of Tinubu as the presidential candidate of the APC.
It would be recalled that Masari was named the running mate of Tinubu before he was replaced by Vice President Kashim Shetima. The APM said in its brief of argument by its counsel, Chukwuma-Machukwu-Ume (SAN), that the PEPC wrongly struck out its petition.
The party prayed the court to set aside the decision of the lower court as being misconceived. APM also argued that the striking out of Masari’s name from its petition and its consequent dismissal on September 6 was in error, as Masari was a necessary party in the petition.
The PEPC had dismissed APM’s petition based on pre-hearing motions filed by INEC, APC, and Shettima. According to the APM, the grounds upon which its petition was predicated was that Tinubu was at the time of the presidential election, not qualified to contest in line with Section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
Machukwu-Ume told the court that the PEPC misconceived the material facts and case of his client and wrongly progressed to determine issues not contemplated by the appellant’s petition and erroneously dismissed the petition.
However, efforts by Machukwu-Ume to move the appeal were rejected by the panel on the grounds that moving it would amount to wasting the precious time of the court.
Justice Okoro, the presiding justice, insisted that the appeal be withdrawn since the issue had been decided.
“We have read your appeal and the issues raised therein. You are not asking us to make your candidate the president if your appeal succeeds.
“You just want to state the law and go home, without benefit. We have other appeals that are substantial and withdrawing this appeal will help reduce the workload on us.
“We have read the appeal and are unanimous that it is a non-issue, having been pronounced upon by this court,” Justice Okoro said.
Machukwu-Ume, though reluctantly, accepted and withdrew the appeal on behalf of his client, the APM. All the respondents did not oppose the withdrawal and did not ask for the cost.
 challenging the judgment of the Presidenti){kind=link}