BREAKING: S’Court Dismisses PDP’s Suit Against Tinubu, Shettima Over Double Nomination

The coast is now clear for the May 29 inauguration of President-elect, Bola Tinubu, and the Vice President-elect, Kashim Shettima, as President and Vice President of Nigeria, respectively.

This was sequel to the dismissal of a suit by the Supreme Court on Friday, filed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking the disqualification of the duo over alleged double nomination.

A five-member panel of the court held on Friday that the PDP lacked the locus standi to institute the suit.

The panel said the PDP is not a member of the APC.

The PDP had claimed that Shettima’s nomination as Tinubu’s running mate was in breach of the provisions of sections 29(1), 33, 35, and 84(1)(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

The opposition party argued that Shettima’s nomination to contest the position of vice-president and Borno Central senatorial seat — at the same time — contravened the law.

But, the apex court held that, “The position did not change in section 285(14)(c) of the constitution. No matter pained or disgruntled a political party is with the way and manner another political party is conducting or has conducted its affairs concerning its nomination of candidates for any position, it must keep mum and remain an onlooker for he lacks locus standi to challenge such nomination in court.

“Section 285(14)(c) of the constitution only allows a political party to challenge the decisions and activities of INEC disqualifying its own candidate from participating in an election.

“It is therefore abundantly clear that a political party that files a suit challenging the nomination of a candidate of another political party would be a nosy busy-body, a meddlesome interloper, peeping into the affairs of his neighbour without any backing.

“The appellants by its originating summons and affidavits in support filed to disclose any nexus between the actions of the respondents and the suit. And it has failed to show which harm it suffered or that it stands to potentially suffer from the action of the respondents. In fact no dispute has been shown to exist between the appellants and the respondents.

“I’m in complete agreement with the lower court that the appellant lacked locus standi to institute and maintain this action at the trial court.”

The apex court added that the appeal was frivolous and bound to fail.

LEADERSHIP reports that there had been apprehension before now over whether the May 29 transition will take place or not.