0
0
The Presidential Election Petition Court is hearing the petition filed by Allied People’s Movement challenging the February 25 election victory of President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
At the last hearing on Monday, the party asked for a week adjournment which was turned down by the court.
The party had applied to the court for a date to commence hearing of its petition against the results of the presidential election which had earlier been delayed over their inability to obtain a Supreme Court judgement which had dismissed the PDP’s suit which sought to nullify the President’s election based on allegations of double nomination against Vice-President Kashim Shettima.
The party claimed that it is necessary for them to make progress in their case against the ruling party because it had far-reaching pronouncements which are relevant to certain core issues of dispute in its case.
As the hearing got underway, the APM called it’s sole witness – Aisha Abubakar who said she is the assistant welfare officer of the party and a politician. Under cross examination, Ms. Abubakar stated that she wasn’t privy to when INEC got the notice of substitution for Borno central senatorial for the APC.
She added that she is not aware of the Supreme Court judgement delivered on May 26 that dismissed the PDP’s Suit on allegations of double nomination against Kashim Shettima and was made to read some sections of the judgement.
Ms. Abubakar also admitted that Kabiru Masari did not contest the Presidential Election but was a place holder.
The Allied Peoples Movement objected to the admissibility of the judgement, stating that reasons will be given at a later date, however, the court admitted the judgement as evidence.
Following this, the APM said it would have closed its case as stated in the pre-hearing scheduled but that it’s yet to get certain documents from INEC.
Counsel to the party, Gideon Idiagbonya informed the Court that the party had issued a subpoena to INEC and is expecting to get those documents.
The said subpoena is dated 19 June, but the court out of curiosity sought to know when the party filed its petition and the APM said it was filed on March 20.
The court wondered why it had to wait till June 19 to apply for subpoena for a petition filed since March 20.
With the court’s hint, the APM closed its case.
