The case filed by the Allied Peoples Movement, which challenges President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima of the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s election victories on February 25, is now being heard by the Presidential Election case Court.
The court denied the party’s request for a week-long delay at the most recent hearing on Monday.
The party had requested a date from the court to start hearing its petition challenging the presidential election results, which had previously been postponed due to their inability to obtain a Supreme Court decision that had dismissed the PDP’s suit that sought to invalidate the President’s election based on allegations of double nominating Vice President Kashim Shettima.
The party said that because the ruling party had made extensive announcements that were pertinent to some of the lawsuit’s central concerns, they needed to forward their case against it.
The APM called Aisha Abubakar, a lawmaker and the party’s assistant welfare officer, as its lone witness as the hearing got underway. Ms. Abubakar admitted under cross-examination that she was unaware of the precise moment INEC received the APC’s notice of substitution for the Borno Central Senatorial seat.She noted that she was unaware of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which was rendered on May 26 and dismissed the PDP’s lawsuit about Kashim Shettima’s alleged double nomination, and was required to read portions of it.
Ms. Abubakar also admitted that Kabiru Masari did not contest the Presidential Election but was a place holder.
The Allied Peoples Movement protested to the judgment’s admissibility and said that its justification will be provided later; however, the court accepted the judgment as evidence.
After then, the APM claimed that if it had received specific papers from INEC, it might have concluded its case as planned for the pre-hearing.
Gideon Idiagbonya, the party’s attorney, informed the court that the party had served a subpoena on INEC and expected to receive the requested documents.
The aforementioned subpoena is dated 19 June, but the court inquired when the party filed its petition out of curiosity, and the APM responded that it was filed on March 20.
The court questioned why it took until June 19 to request a subpoena for a petition that had been submitted since March 20.
The APM concluded its case after the judge gave a hint.