Presidency 2023: APC delegates drag Tinubu to court over plot to substitute Masari as running mate

Some delegates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) national convention in Abuja, Zakari Maigari and Zubainatu Mohammed, have dragged the party, the presidential candidate, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, INEC, to aFederal High Court, Abuja, seeking an order to restrain the APC from substituting Alhaji Kabiru Masari as the running mate to Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, APC candidate in the 2023 presidential election. They also sought the court to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting the substitution of the APC vice-presidential candidate for the 2023 elections.

Tinubu, had after the national convention, filled Alhaji Kabiru Masari in his form as his running mate which was submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Thereafter, the party came up with the conceit of placeholder, suggesting that the vice-presidential candidate of the APC was yet to be selected. Tinubu had also said that he is still searching for a running mate.

Some senators who did not participate in the senatorial primary elections but were substituted by the APC leaders who delisted the contenders labelled placeholders, were rejected by the INEC.

Maigari and Mohammed, both APC stakeholder’s, identified the defendants as the APC, INEC, Tinubu, and Masari as defendants in the suit – FHC/ABJ/CS/1059/2022, dated July 4, 2022.

The plaintiffs approached the court to determine whether it was legally permissible for Masari to withdraw as the vice-presidential candidate of the APC so as to be substituted or replaced with another person by the party, citing sections 142(1) and sections 29(1), 31 and 33 of the Electoral Act.

Relying on the joint ticket provision in section 142(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether the withdrawal of Masari as the vice-presidential candidate does not entail the automatic withdrawal of Tinubu as the APC presidential candidate for purpose of the 2023 general elections.

They sought the following reliefs:

Whether having regard to the combined effect of sections 142(1) and sections 29(1), 31, and 33 of the Electoral Act, it is legally permissible for the 4 Defendant, Masari, to withdraw as the vice-presidential candidate of the 1st Defendant, APC, and the running mate of the 3 Defendant, Bola Tinubu, so as to be substituted or replaced with another person by the 1st Defendant, APC as its candidate for the office of Vice President for purpose of the February 25, 2023, Presidential Election.

Whether in view of the joint ticket provision in section 142(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the withdrawal of the 4h Defendant, MASARI, as the candidate for the office of Vice President does not entail the automatic withdrawal of the 3″ Defendant, Tinubu, as the candidate for the office of President for purpose of the 2023 General Elections.

Whether having regard to the provisions of sections 29(1), 31 and 33 of the Electoral Act 2022, the 1″ Defendant, APC, is entitled to submit the name of any other person to replace the name of the 4 Defendant, MASARI, as the candidate for the office of Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, without holding a fresh primary election to produce a fresh presidential candidate.

Whether the 3 Defendant, Tinubu, having nominated the 4 Defendant, Masari, in compliance with section 142(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the 3 Defendant, Tinubu, can subsequently validly undertake or effect nomination of any other person to replace the Masari, whether upon withdrawal of the 4 Defendant, Masari or under any other circumstances, in view of the provisions of section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Advertisement

The plaintiffs argued that just as Section 187 (1) of the Constitution creates the governorship candidate and deputy-governorship candidate joint ticket, section 142(1) also establishes the joint-ticket for the presidential candidate and vice-presidential candidate.

They declared: “Accordingly, it is submitted that the same principles apply in both situations.

“In the case of the governorship candidate and deputy governorship candidate joint ticket, it was held in PDP v. DEGI EREMIENYO (2020) LPELR-49734(SC), pp. 8-16, it was held: The sum total is that the joint ticket of the 1st and 2nd respondents sponsored by the 3 respondent was vitiated by the disqualification of the 1st respondent. Both candidates disqualified are deemed not to be candidates at the governorship election conducted in Bayelsa State.”