Connect with us

News

Tribunal for Presidency: Final Statements from INEC, Tinubu, Atiku, and Obi to be Adopted on Tuesday

Published

on

The Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja is preparing to deliver a judgment on three petitions looking to annul President Bola Tinubu’s election.

Before setting a judgment date, a five-member panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, has instructed all involved parties to present their final argument briefs tomorrow.

In a formal notice to the parties, they were asked to present their written addresses concerning the petition lodged against President Tinubu by the former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party candidate, as well as the petition filed by the Labour Party candidate, Mr. Peter Obi.

It’s important to remember that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared on March 1 that Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress representative, won the February 25 presidential election, outperforming 17 other contenders. According to the results, Tinubu won 8,794,726 votes, outdoing Alhaji Atiku from the PDP who got 6,984,520 votes, and Mr. Obi from the LP who secured 6,101,533 votes.

Nevertheless, Atiku and Obi, dissatisfied with the results, appealed to the court to overturn the election. Both claimed in their petitions that they had won the presidential election and questioned Tinubu’s qualification to participate. They also asked the court to declare that President Tinubu didn’t receive the majority of legal votes in the election, and requested the withdrawal of his Certificate of Return from INEC.

In addition to their other requests, the plaintiffs also urged the court to arrange a new presidential election, excluding President Tinubu, who they argue was initially ineligible to participate in the poll.

The 2022 Electoral Act mandates aggrieved candidates to submit a petition to the court within 21 days following the announcement of the election results by INEC. The court is then required to provide a written judgment within 180 days.

On July 5, the court concluded hearing the petitions from both Atiku and Obi.

Obi rested his case after bringing forth 13 witnesses and presenting various documentary exhibits. Atiku, meanwhile, produced 27 witnesses and presented his own exhibits to the court. INEC and President Tinubu each presented one witness in their defense, whereas the APC did not produce any witnesses for the court.

All respondents, in their individual written addresses, encouraged the court to dismiss the petitions due to a lack of merit. They contended that the petitioners failed to satisfy the burden of proof as dictated by law.

The respondents pointed out that while the petitioners made allegations involving criminal elements, they failed to substantiate them beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by law.

President Tinubu has requested the court to affirm his election victory as declared by INEC.

Specifically, Atiku, in his joint petition with his party, filed under case number: CA/PEPC/05/2023, argued that the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election was “invalid due to non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022”. He insisted that Tinubu “was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election” and alleged that Tinubu, cited as the 2nd Respondent, “was not qualified to contest the election” at the time.

In a subsequent document filed by his legal team led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, Atiku informed the court of inconsistencies regarding the President-elect’s actual birth date, attended secondary schools (specifically Government College Ibadan), state of origin, gender, real name, and evidence of university attendance (Chicago State University).

Atiku claimed that the supposed degree certificate from Chicago State University allegedly obtained by the 2nd Respondent does not belong to him, but to a woman (“F”) named Bola Tinubu as stated on the certificate.

Atiku further accused Tinubu of not disclosing to INEC, the 1st Respondent, his voluntary acquisition of Guinean citizenship, complete with Guinean Passport No. D00001551, in addition to his Nigerian citizenship. He then issued a notice to Tinubu to present the original copies of these passports.

Atiku argued that the APC candidate did not meet the constitutional criteria, thereby “being constitutionally unfit to contest for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

Similarly, Obi and LP, in their petition labelled: CA/PEPC/03/2023, contended that Senator Kashim Shettima, Tinubu’s running mate, was still the nominated candidate of the APC for the Borno Central Senatorial election when he became the Vice Presidential candidate.

Obi and LP also questioned Tinubu’s eligibility to run for the presidency, alleging he was previously indicted and fined $460,000 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for dishonesty and drug trafficking. Citing these corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, the petitioners argued that INEC violated its own regulations and guidelines.

They asserted that INEC was required during the presidential election to use technological devices for voter accreditation, verification, continuation, and authentication according to its regulations.

Consequently, they asked the court to not only rule that Tinubu was unqualified to run for the election but also to declare that all votes he received were void due to his disqualification.

The petitioners requested the court to confirm that, once votes attributed to Tinubu are disregarded, Obi received the majority of lawful votes and satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the February 25, 2023, presidential election.

As an alternative, they called for an order to annul the election and compel INEC to conduct a new one, excluding Tinubu, Shettima, and the APC, listed as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents respectively.

The petitioners urged the court to declare that, as Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes, his return as the winner of the presidential election was unlawful, unconstitutional, and completely invalid.

In an additional alternative prayer, Obi, through his legal team led by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, and Awa Kalu, SAN, requested the tribunal to declare the presidential election null and void because it was not conducted in substantial accordance with the Electoral Act 2022 and the amended 1999 Constitution.
They also requested an order “cancelling the presidential election conducted on February 25, 2023, and obliging the 1st Respondent to conduct a fresh election for the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Originally, five petitions were filed to challenge Tinubu’s election. However, on May 8, the Action Alliance, AA, withdrew its case, and two days later, the Action Peoples Party, APP, followed suit by discontinuing its own petition.

The Allied Peoples Movement, APM, which chose not to withdraw its petition, adopted its final written address on July 14, after which the court reserved its judgment on the petition.

In its petition, CA/PEPC/04/2023, APM argued that the withdrawal of Mr. Ibrahim Masari, initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the All Progressives Congress, APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy according to Sections 131(c) and 142 of the amended 1999 Constitution.

The party claimed that there was approximately a three-week gap between when Masari, listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed his intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his nomination, and the time when Tinubu supposedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.

APM further contended that Tinubu’s candidacy had expired by the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

The Most Shocking A/Court ‘Judgment’ in Nigerian History: An unfortunate precedent that should not be allowed to stand

Published

on

By

The last is yet to be heard of wide ranging ex-parte orders as this time around, the charade has moved to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. In the case of FBN Quest & Another vs. Nestoil & Others, the Court of Appeal’s ex parte orders are not only egregious but a chilling sign of judicial capture, smacking of dirty practices at best and corruption at worst.

On Thursday, 27th November 2025, at exactly 2:00pm, Justice Yargata Nimpar delivered a ‘ruling ’ that appeared like a thief in the night, a ghost and unscheduled, the said decision came upon a Motion Ex-parte which was not heard not argued in open court, yet it surfaced, fully written, signed, stamped, and delivered as though it had lived a full life on the Court of Appeal docket.

For many Nigerians, the judiciary has again weathered the storms. Veterans of the legal system describe this episode as “a daylight heist… a judicial armed robbery without guns.”

The controversies over wide ranging ex-parte applications, it would seem, has found its way to the Court of appeal, an intermediate court with limited original jurisdiction as donated to it by statute.

In this instance, barely two weeks ago, we reported the ex-parte orders against NESTOIL and the other defendants listed in the suit before the Federal High Court which led to the transfer of the suit to another judge.

The said interim orders were vacated by effluxion of time, being that ex-parte orders last for only 14 days.

The court however ordered parties to maintain status quo and adjourned the Motion on Notice for hearing by the consent of the parties. That Motion is still pending before the Federal High Court.

It would seem that in order to frustrate that pending Motion, the Plaintiffs somehow filed a similar application to the Court of Appeal which was granted an order ex-parte directing the Lower Court not to take any further steps, including determining the pending application filed by Plaintiffs (now Appellants).

This magically resurrected, fast-tracked application seem to have been rubber-stamped at the fictional “Appeal Bench of Shadows,” as insiders have begun calling it.

A CASE THAT NEVER EXISTED — YET RECEIVED A JUDGMENT

Our Judiciary correspondent gathered that when the court’s official list for the day was released, nothing seemed amiss. No controversial cases. No unexpected hearings.

But somewhere inside the dusty chambers of bureaucracy, a secret file was already being prepared and by 2pm, a judgment carrying the signatures of an entire appeal panel had surfaced — even though none of them had appeared in open court and when the case itself had never been argued before any High Court, making an appellate ruling legally impossible.

By evening, whispers had turned into rumblings. Court workers who handled the mysterious document reported unusual instructions: No public sitting; No mention on the court list; No access to case filings; No digital record and No audio recording of proceedings. Yet an order was made retrospectively to undo a completed act! which is yet another impossibility in law, because the exparte order cannot restore what has been already executed.

“It was like dealing with a ghost file,” one clerk said. “It appeared from nowhere and disappeared into official archives as though it had always existed.”

This judgment, once delivered, spread like wildfire, with legal scholars calling it “a constitutional impossibility.” Veterans said they had never seen anything similar since the 1970s.

Enquiries from our judiciary correspondents indicate that an application can only be hinged upon a valid Notice of Appeal against a decision of a lower court before any application can be entertained at the Court of Appeal.

Further Investigations by our judiciary correspondent reveals that no such Notice of Appeal has been filed nor served on the respondents; no parties have been invited to Settle Records and no Records of Appeal have been transmitted.

One wonders the platform or upon which grounds the ex-parte order was made, observed one senior lawyer, especially as a similar pending application filed by the Appellants has been adjourned for Hearing by the Federal High Court.

Furthermore, the case at the trial court before Justice Osiagor has not been heard on its merits, which documents was placed before the appellate court and all applications before the judge has not been heard or is the court of appeal now a trial court.

A JUDICIARY AT A CROSSROADS

Public outrage rose quickly. Lawyers described the situation as “a hijacking of justice by shadowy interests.” Civil society groups demanded explanations.

A Judiciary where justice can be manufactured behind closed doors…a legal system where influence not merit, decides outcomes…and an institution tested by the weight of powerful external forces, et cetera should not be allowed to thrive.

AN ERA-DEFINING SCANDAL

This judgement will stand as one of the most dramatic challenges ever faced by Nigeria’s justice system. The shockwaves has rippled far beyond the courtroom — touching politics, business, security agencies, and public trust.

One thing is clear: This is the kind of judicial earthquake that rewrites history, shakes institutions, and forces a nation to confront the truths it fears the most. Our judicial correspondences were able to get an incline of the ex-parte orders made by the Court of Appeal as follows:

  1. AN ORDER of interim restorative injunction reversing all steps taken by the Respondents and/or persons purporting to act on the instructions of the Respondents and which steps or actions were taken pursuant to the order of the Federal High Court coram Osiagor, J made on the 20th day of November 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the Appellants’ Motion on Notice filed on the 26th day of November 2025.
  2. AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, affiliates, and privies from interfering with and interrupting the Receiver/Manager in the performance of his duties pending the hearing and determination of the Appellants’ Motion on Notice filed on 26th November 2025.
  3. AN ORDER staying further proceedings at the lower court pending the hearing and determination of the Appellants’ Motion on Notice filed on the 26th November 2025.

A SHOCKING DEPARTURE FROM JUDICIAL NORMS

Therefore, the Lagos Court of Appeal’s decision to grant ex parte orders in FBN Quest & Another vs. Nestoil & Others stunned the legal community as ex-parte rulings are meant for rare emergencies and hardly exercised by appellate courts. By acting without hearing both sides, while the matter was already before the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal has undermined the principle of natural justice and distorted its own role.

NIGERIAN IMAGE AT RISK

At a time when Nigeria is striving to reposition its global reputation, this case sends the wrong message. It portrays the country as one where courts can be hijacked by private interests, where fairness is discarded, and where corruption lurks behind judicial robes. For investors and international partners, it reinforces damaging stereotypes of weak institutions and compromised justice.

AN URGENT CALL FOR INVESTIGATION

These orders are not just irregular — they are evidence of judicial capture. They must be investigated urgently. The Chief Justice of Nigeria, the National Judicial Council, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Nigerian Bar Association cannot remain silent. If appellate courts become arenas for ex-parte adventures, Nigeria’s justice system risks collapse under the weight of manipulation.

CLOSING NOTE

The Court of Appeal’s conduct in FBN Quest & Another vs. Nestoil & Others is more than a misstep, it is a warning sign of judicial capture. If Nigeria is serious about restoring its image and strengthening democracy, this case must be investigated, accountability enforced, and reforms implemented. Anything less would be an abdication of the judiciary’s sacred duty to uphold justice. We must not allow that to happen.
A very Senior lawyer emphasize that the exparte order of the court of appeal lagos division in Nestoil has the possibility of eroding administrative control of Heads of superior Court from assigning or re assigning matters within their respective courts. Furthermore both the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Justice of Nigeria may not have the authority to disband a panel and re- constitute another panel over any matter in their respective courts. This decision is a total anarchy to the judiciary and urgent steps must be taken to vacate the strange Court of appeal exparte order.

The conduct of the court of appeal justices is not excusable anywhere in the world and it’s indeed has brought the court of Appeal justices who constituted the panel to ridicule

Continue Reading

News

Pius Akutah’s Alleged Fraud at Nigerian Shippers Council Uncovered

Published

on

By

Investigations by Nigerian Concord Newspaper reveal that the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Shippers Council, Mr. Pius Akutah, has allegedly misappropriated public funds for a lavish lifestyle.

According to our findings, within months of assuming office, Akutah allegedly purchased a bulletproof SUV valued at approximately N850 million. In addition, he is reported to have acquired over twenty exotic SUVs for use as a convoy.

Akutah is also said to have acquired multiple high-value properties, including three in Abuja’s Maitama and Asokoro districts worth over N2 billion, and two in Lagos’ Banana Island valued at N1.8 billion. These acquisitions appear far beyond the scope of his official salary and allowances.

Further investigation suggests that Akutah may be using public funds to support political ambitions, including allegedly grooming militants across 23 local government areas in Benue State for a potential 2027 gubernatorial bid.

Staff of the Shippers Council reportedly claim that Akutah frequently accesses the council’s treasury without proper authorization. Some insiders have indicated that a petition will soon be filed with the EFCC, ICPC, and the Presidency to report his alleged misconduct.

*

Continue Reading

News

Pius Akutah’s Alleged Fraud at Nigerian Shippers Council Uncovered

Published

on

By

Investigations by Nigerian Concord Newspaper reveal that the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Shippers Council, Mr. Pius Akutah, has allegedly misappropriated public funds for a lavish lifestyle.

According to our findings, within months of assuming office, Akutah allegedly purchased a bulletproof SUV valued at approximately N850 million. In addition, he is reported to have acquired over twenty exotic SUVs for use as a convoy.

Akutah is also said to have acquired multiple high-value properties, including three in Abuja’s Maitama and Asokoro districts worth over N2 billion, and two in Lagos’ Banana Island valued at N1.8 billion. These acquisitions appear far beyond the scope of his official salary and allowances.

Further investigation suggests that Akutah may be using public funds to support political ambitions, including allegedly grooming militants across 23 local government areas in Benue State for a potential 2027 gubernatorial bid.

Staff of the Shippers Council reportedly claim that Akutah frequently accesses the council’s treasury without proper authorization. Some insiders have indicated that a petition will soon be filed with the EFCC, ICPC, and the Presidency to report his alleged misconduct.

*

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.