Supreme Court dismisses ‘double-nomination’ suit of PDP against Shettima

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal brought before it by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the President elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and the Vice President elect, Kashim Shettima of the All Progressives Congress (APC) over alleged double nomination.

And by this ruling the Supreme Court has given a judicial seal of approval for the inauguration of President-elect, Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President-elect Kashim Shettima.

Recall the PDP had, in their appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CV/108/2023 urged the appellate court to reverse the January 13 judgment by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja which dismissed its suit on the grounds that the PDP lacked locus standi to have instituted the suit.

The Apex Court held that the PDP’s suit praying disqualification of Tinubu and Shettima was grossly lacking in merit and dismissed it.

Justice Adamu Jauro who delivered the lead judgment slammed a fine of N2 million on PDP for poke nosing into the internal affairs of the All Progressives Congress, APC, in the conduct of its primary elections and nomination of its candidates.

According to Justice Jauro, “Whichever angle, this appeal is viewed, it is frivolous and liable to be dismissed”, and the court consequently dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

Justice Jauro agreed with Tinubu’s lawyer, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, that PDP acted as busy body and meddlesome interloper in the ways and manners it dabbled into APC’s affairs unjustly.

The Apex Court held that apart from the fact that PDP lacked requisite jurisdiction to institute the suit, the party also failed to provide scintilla of evidence that Shettima engaged in double nomination.

The claim of PDP on the alleged double nomination of the Vice President-elect was described as most unfortunate and a clear deliberate mischief to mislead the Court and the country.

The Supreme Court also agreed with Fagbemi that no matter the pains of PDP on how APC conducted its primary election and nominated its candidates, PDP must remain onlooker.

“It is abundantly clear that the Appellant (PDP) in the totality of its position in the instant case, is peeping and poke nosing into the affairs of another party as a busy body and meddlesome interloper,” he said.

The Court held that the action of PDP was painful because it used the social media to set a booby trap for the Supreme Court to blackmail it describing the action as most unfortunate, unwarranted and uncalled for.