Supreme Court warns PDP against using social media to bully Justices

Supreme Court warns PDP against ‘appalling and unprofessional’ conduct

By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor

Justice Inyang Okoro of the Supreme Court has warned the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to stop using social media to bully and terrorise Justices of Nigeria’s top court.

Okoro gave the warning while delivering judgment in the appeal by the PDP seeking to void the election of President Bola Tinubu on grounds that his running mate, Kashim Shettima, engaged in double nomination by simultaneously filing papers for a Senatorial seat in Borno and vice presidential candidacy.

The five-member panel of Justice threw out the appeal and held the appellant had no locus standi to institute the suit, without ruling on the merit of the case.

Okoro held the PDP tried to mislead the Supreme Court by claiming the lower court found there was indeed a double nomination and slammed the attempt by the appellant to twist the story on social media.

“Using social media to terrorise and bully the Justices of the Supreme Court by the appellant is appalling and unprofessional,” Okoro said, via reporting by Daily Post.

“The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. I abide by the award of cost in the lead judgment.”

However, PDP presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar continues his case against Tinubu at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting at the Appeal Court.

__________________________________________________________________

Related articles:

Atiku alleges Tinubu scheming to bribe tribunal members

Atiku certain BVAS will scuttle plans of election riggers

Ariwoola tells Judges to deliver justice, restore confidence in judiciary amid election petitions

__________________________________________________________________

Atiku lines up 100 witnesses against Tinubu

Atiku plans to present 100 witnesses in his petition against Tinubu at the PEPC which has given PDP candidate three weeks to prove his case.

Hearing in the petitions begins on May 30, proceedings will end August 8, and the court will wind up on September 16, according to the official timeline.

PEPC Chairman Haruna Tsammani said in his pre-hearing report on May 23 that a total 166 witnesses will be called, star witnesses will be examined but only the written statements of other witnesses will be adopted.

The court gave the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) two days to present its defence, and Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) five days to do the same.

Justice Stephen Adah, who read the pre-hearing report, reiterated Atiku’s petition has been merged with those filed by  Labour Party (LP) candidate Peter Obi and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).

The court held that consolidation of the three petitions would ensure justice, adding the parties would adopt their final briefs of argument to enable the court fix a date for judgment.

Atiku’s grouses against Tinubu’s mandate

Atiku in his joint petition with the PDP:

• Applied for the withdrawal of the Certificate of Return the INEC issued to Tinubu

• Argued the declaration of Tinubu as winner of the election is “invalid by reason of non- compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.”

• Argued Tinubu’s election is invalid by reason of corrupt practices.

“The 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the Election.

“The 2nd Respondent was at the time of the Election not qualified to contest the Election”, Atiku added.

He listed grounds on which the court should nullify Tinubu’s election and asked the court to declare him [Atiku] winner of the election, having secured the second highest number of lawful votes cast.

Among other claims, Atiku also told the court:

Tinubu “demonstrated inconsistency as to his actual date of birth, secondary schools he attended (Government College Ibadan); his state of origin, gender, actual name; certificates evidencing universities attended (Chicago State University).

“The purported degree certificate of the 2nd Respondent [Tinubu] allegedly acquired at the Chicago State University did not belong to him but to a female (F) described as “F” in the certificate bearing the name Bola Tinubu.

“The 2nd Respondent did not disclose to the 1st Respondent (INEC) his voluntary acquisition of the citizenship of Republic of Guinea with Guinean Passport No. D00001551, in addition to his Nigerian citizenship.

“The 2nd Respondent is hereby given notice to produce the original copies of his said two passports.”

“[Tinubu] has record of criminal forfeiture of the sun of $460, 000. 00 for the drug related offence before the United States Judge, John A Nordberg in the 2nd Respondent’s First Heritage Account No. 263226700, being proceeds of narcotics-trafficking in violation of 18 U. S. C 1956 and 1947 for an offence involving narcotics.”

Atiku insisted Tinubu did not meet the constitutional threshold and “is constitutionally disabled from contesting for office of President of Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

But Tinubu’s defence team led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN queried the legal competence of the petition.

He described Atiku as a serial election loser since 1993 who has crisscrossed different political parties to run for President.