The APC asked for the dismissal of LP and Obi’s suit on the grounds that their petition lacked merit.
The move came yesterday as the APC gave an explanation of the circumstances that led Tinubu to forfeit the sum of $460,000 to the government of the United States of America (USA) in 1993.
In its notice of preliminary objection marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 and filed at PEPC’s Secretariat, Monday night by Thomas Ojo, a member of the party’s legal team led by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the APC faulted the LP petition, declaring it a waste of time.
The APC prayed the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that Obi, the 1st petitioner, lacked requisite locus standi to institute the petition because he was not a member of LP at least 30 days before the party’s presidential primary to be validly sponsored by the party.
On Obi’s claim to being a member of the LP, the APC argued that he was a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) until May 24, 2022, when he was screened as the party’s presidential aspirant in April 2023.
Where’s $2.4bn crude oil money deal?
The APC stated that Obi participated in PDP’s screening exercise and was cleared to contest the presidential election as an aspirant.
The party requested that the tribunal should dismiss the petition with substantial cost.
The LP and Obi are challenging the victory of President-elect, Bola Tinubu of the APC, the winner of the February 25 election, on grounds of alleged non-qualification and non-compliance, among others.
In their separate responses filed before the PEPC, the APC and INEC urged the court to dismiss the petition for being unmeritorious.
They questioned the competence of the petition and the grounds on which it was premised.
They also challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the petition on the grounds that it is, among others, incompetent.
It added: “The 1st petitioner (Obi) purportedly resigned his membership of Peoples Democratic Party on 24th May 2022 to purportedly join the 2nd petitioner (LP) on 27th May, 2022.
“The 2nd petitioner conducted its presidential primary on 30th May, 2022, which purportedly produced the first petitioner as its candidate, which time contravened Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act for him to contest the primary election as a member of the 2nd petitioner.
“The 1st petitioner was not a member of the 2nd petitioner as at the time of his alleged sponsorship.
“Whereas, by the mandatory provisions of Section 77 (1) (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022, a political party shall maintain a register and shall make such a register available to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses and convention.
“All the presidential candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were screened on 29th April, 2022, an exercise in which the 1st petitioner herein participated and was cleared to contest while being a member of the party.
“The 1at petitioner herein resigned his membership of the PDP on Thursday 26th May, 2022 and joined the Labour Party the following day 27th May, 2022.
“The 2nd petitioner herein conducted its presidential primary on 30th May, 2022, which produced the 1st petitioner as the candidate it intended to sponsor in the general election.
“By Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 2nd petitioner is mandated to have submitted its comprehensive register of members to the 1st respondent (INEC) 30 days before its presidential primary, that is to say, the said register of members must have been submitted to the 1st respondent on or before 30th April 2022.
“The 1st petitioner, as of 30th April 2022 was still a member of the PDP, and his name was not and could not have been in the register of members submitted by the 2nd petitioner to the 1t respondent.”
On the non-inclusion of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, the APC wondered why Obi and its party excluded the PDP and its candidate from their petition, having admitted that the PDP candidate came second in the election.
It added that it would amount to a breach of Atiku’s right to a fair hearing should the court grant Obi’s relief to declare him the winner and void Atiku’s votes without hearing him.
INEC argued that, as against the claim by Obi and his party, it conducted the election in full compliance with relevant laws and challenged the petitioners to prove the contrary.
Meanwhile, giving an explanation of the circumstances that led President-elect, Bola Tinubu, to forfeit the sum of $460,000 to the government of the United States of America (USA), in 1993, the APC in processes it filed to defend the outcome of the presidential election held on February 25, maintained that Tinubu, its candidate, merely surrendered funds in 10 bank accounts that were opened in either his name or that of Compass Finance and Investment Co.
The ruling party told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, that funds in the said accounts, which were domiciled in both First Heritage Bank and CitiBank N. A, were subject to a “civil forfeiture proceeding” in Case No: 93C4483.
According to the APC, the purported decision of the United State District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern division, in the said case, was not fine, but a decree of forfeiture of the amount of $460,000 to the United States pursuant to the settlement of claim by the parties to the case.
“The said decision is not against the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu), but against the funds in the various accounts opened in the name of Bola Tinubu with First Heritage Bank and Citibank N.A.
“The compromise terms that led to the forfeiture were preceded by express admission on record that the 2nd Respondent did not admit the commission of any drug, drug-related or illicit conduct of dishonesty or fraud that fits into any of the grounds of disqualification to contest for the office of president of Nigeria at the 25th February 2023 general election,” APC insisted.
The party also listed the 10 account numbers that contained funds that Tinubu forfeited after the settlement of the claim by parties involved in the case, as: 263226700, 39483134, 39483396, 4650279566, 00400220, 39936404, 39936383, 52050-89451952, 52050-89451952 and 52050-89451953.
Besides, the APC, through its team of lawyers led by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that the Federal Government had as far back as 2003, through the American Consulate in Nigeria, inquired about Tinubu’s criminal record.
It said the outcome of the inquiry which the Federal Government made through the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), “yielded a clean bill of health that unequivocally and unreservedly cleared 2nd Respondent of any criminal record, interest or association in the United States of America”.
“The formal clearance report dated February 4, 2003, under the hand of Legal attaché to the United States Embassy, Nigeria, in response to the inquiry by the Inspector-General of Police, is hereby pleaded and shall be relied upon for its full effect; particularly the portion in the second paragraph which states-
‘In relation to your letter, dated February 3, 2003, reference number SR.3000 /IGP SEC/ABJ/VOL. 24/287, regarding Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a records check of the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s (FBI) National Crime Information Centre (NCIC) was conducted.
‘The results of the checks were negative for any criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for Bola Ahmed Tinubu (DOB 29 March. 1952). For information of your department, NCIC is a centralised information centre that maintains the records of every arrest and conviction within the United States and its territories.’
the APC said it would apply for a subpoena to be issued again at the IGP to enable him to adduce and tender in evidence, the letter dated February 3, 2003, reference number SR.3000 /IGP SEC/ABJ/VOL. 24/287, which triggered the clearance letter of the Legal attaché of the US Embassy in Nigeria, as well as the response to the same dated 4th February 2003.
It further argued that the said forfeiture Tinubu made to the US government, having lasted a period of 29 years, was no longer a valid ground to challenge his eligibility to contest the presidential election.
