News

JUST IN: Tribunal Dismisses APM’s Petition Against Tinubu, Says It’s Abuse Of Court Process

Published

2 years ago

September 6, 2023

The Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, has dismissed as incompetent, the case the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, filed to nullify President Bola Tinubu’s election.

The court held that issues the APM raised in its petition contained pre-election matters that could only be determined by the Federal High Court.

Chairman of the panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani, who read the ruling, upheld preliminary objections that all the Respondents raised to challenge the competence of the petition.

Justice Haruna noted that since the petition centered on the qualification or otherwise of President Tinubu to contest the presidential election that held on February 25, the APM, ought to have gone to court within 14 days after Tinubu was nominated by the All Progressives Congress, APC.

He held that since the cause of action bordered on a pre-election matter, the APM, lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s nomination.

More so, Justice Tsammani held that the Supreme Court had earlier decided that a political party does not have the right to challenge a nomination that was made by another political party.

He held that section 131 and 237 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, made provisions for the qualification or disqualification of candidates in an election.

The court noted that the main grouse of the APM was on the alleged invalid nomination of Tinubu’s running mate, Kashim Shettima.

“It is clear that the claim of qualification it non qualification of the the 3rd Respondent (Tinubu) centered on alleged invalid nomination of the 4th Respondent (Shettima).

“It is a pre-election matter,” Justice Tsammani held.

He further held that section 84(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, stipulated that political parties should not impose qualification criteria on a candidate, except as provided for in the constitution.

According to the court, sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 185 and 187 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, settled the issue of qualification and nomination of a candidate for an election.

It held that where an election has already been conducted and result declared, the qualification of a candidate could no longer be challenged on the basis of sections 131 and 137 of the Constitution.

The court held that since the APM failed to challenge President Tinubu’s nomination within the constitutionally allowed period, its case, therefore, had become statute barred.

It held that where the constitution has qualified a candidate for an election, no other law can disqualify such candidate except the constitution itself.

The court held that the issue of double nomination as canvassed by the APM, was not a legally cognizable ground for disqualification.

Besides, the court held that it found no reason why Mr. Ibrahim Masari was cited as the 5th Respondent in the petition since he would not in any way be affected by the outcome of the case.

Consequently, it struck out his name from the petition.

The APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, argued that the withdrawal of Mr. Masari who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.

It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

According to the petitioner, as at the time Tinubu announced Shettima as the Vice Presidential candidate, “he was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regards to the provisions of section 142 of the 1999 Constitution”.

The APM contended that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that his subsequent withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.

It, therefore, prayed the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC as at February 25 when the election was conducted by INEC having violated the provisions the of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

“An order nullifying and voiding all the votes scored by Tinubu in the presidential election in view of his non-qualification as a candidate of the APC”.

As well as an order to set aside the Certificate of Return that was issued to the President by INEC, reliefs that were rejected by the court on Wednesday.

News

W’Cup Qualifiers: Super Eagles Edge Rwanda 1-0 To Revive Qualification Hopes

Published

5 hours ago

September 6, 2025

Editor

In a high-stakes 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifier at the Godswill Akpabio International Stadium in Uyo, Nigeria secured a vital 1–0 victory over Rwanda, breathing new life into their qualification hopes.

The only goal of the match came in the 51st minute when Tolu Arokodare capitalized on a loose ball in the penalty area, slotting it past Rwanda’s goalkeeper to give Nigeria a crucial lead.

The first half ended goalless, with both teams cautious in their approach. Nigeria’s defense, marshalled by Calvin Bassey, held firm despite Rwanda’s tactical shifts in the second half.

News

NCDC Alerts Nigeria As DR Congo Declares Ebola Outbreak

Published

5 hours ago

September 6, 2025

Editor

The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC) has issued a public health advisory following the confirmation of a new Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

As of September 4, 2025, the DRC has reported 28 suspected cases and 15 deaths, including four health workers, in the Kasai Province.

The Director-General of NCDC, Dr. Jide Idris, said the agency will continue to monitor the regional and global situations as there are no cases of Ebola virus disease in Nigeria, as of now.

However, the NCDC is taking proactive measures to prevent the spread of the disease, and it is working closely with relevant Ministries, Departments, Agencies, and Partners to strengthen preparedness and response measures in Nigeria.

Idris urged Nigerians to practice good hand hygiene by washing their hands regularly with soap under running water or using hand sanitisers. He also advised Nigerians to avoid physical contact with anyone showing symptoms of infection or an unknown diagnosis.

Additionally, individuals should handle animals with gloves and protective clothing, and cook animal products thoroughly to reduce the risk of wildlife-to-human transmission.

Furthermore, people should avoid direct contact with the blood, saliva, vomit, urine, and other bodily fluids of suspected or confirmed EVD cases.

The NCDC advises Nigerian citizens and residents to avoid all but essential travel to countries with confirmed Ebola cases. Those with recent travel history to affected areas who experience symptoms should promptly call the NCDC hotline (6232) or their State Ministry of Health hotline for assessment and testing.

They should also shelter-in-place to avoid further spread through shared transport systems and await dedicated responders for assessment and possible transport to a treatment centre.

The NCDC is strengthening surveillance across the country, including borders and airports, and enhancing laboratory capacities for quick testing of suspected cases.

Idris assured that the agency will continue to provide periodic updates on the situation as the Ebola outbreak in the DRC is caused by the Zaire strain, with a mortality rate estimated at 57%.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has deployed experts to support response efforts, and the DRC has activated its Public Health Emergency Operations Centre.

News

5% Fuel Surcharge: What Nigerians Should Know

Published

6 hours ago

September 6, 2025

Editor

File Copy: Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Tax Policy and Fiscal Reforms, Taiwo Oyedele

Confusion has erupted online over a supposed 5% fuel surcharge under Nigeria’s new tax laws, with many fearing a sudden increase in fuel prices.

The chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Taiwo Oyedele, on Saturday through a post on X, clarified what is fact and what is fiction.

The controversy arises from the recent passage of the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025, which consolidates and harmonises previous tax laws.

Some social media posts suggested that President Bola Tinubu’s administration had introduced a new surcharge on fuel, sparking public concern.

Oyedele clarified: “The charge is not a new tax introduced by the current administration. The provision already exists under the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (Amendment) Act, 2007. Its restatement in the new Tax Act is for harmonisation and transparency rather than immediate implementation.”

According to Oyedele, the surcharge is meant to fund road infrastructure, an area that has historically suffered from underfunding.

Over the years, Nigeria’s road network has faced chronic maintenance challenges, resulting in potholes, travel delays, and higher vehicle operating costs.

Oyedele further noted that the surcharge is intended to create a dedicated, predictable funding source for road construction and maintenance.

Oyedele addressed key questions raised by citizens:

Will the surcharge start automatically in January 2026?

No. It will only take effect when the Minister of Finance issues an order published in the Official Gazette:

“The surcharge does not take effect automatically with the new tax laws. It will only commence when the Minister of Finance issues an order published in the Official Gazette as stated under Chapter 7 of the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025. This safeguard ensures careful consideration of timing and economic conditions before implementation,” Oyedele stated.

Does it apply to all fuels?

No. Household energy products such as kerosene, LPG, and CNG are exempt. Clean and renewable energy products are also excluded to support Nigeria’s energy transition agenda.

Why maintain the surcharge amid economic hardship?

Oyedele explained that the fund is meant as a dedicated mechanism for road maintenance:

He said, “The surcharge is designed as a dedicated fund for road infrastructure and maintenance. If implemented effectively, it will provide safer travel conditions, reduce travel time and cost, lower logistics costs and vehicle maintenance expenses, which will benefit the wider economy. This practice is virtually universal with over 150 countries imposing various charges ranging between 20% to 80% of fuel products to guarantee regular investment in road infrastructure.”

Could subsidy savings cover road funding instead?

The Chairman of theCommittee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms said: “While subsidy savings will provide some funding, they are insufficient to meet Nigeria’s huge and recurring road infrastructure needs among other public finance needs. A dedicated fund ensures reliable and predictable financing for roads, complementing the budget and ensuring roads are not left underfunded.”

Does this contradict the tax reform objective of easing citizens’ burden?

Oyedele reassured: “The reforms have already reduced multiple taxes and removed or suspended several charges that directly affect households and small businesses, such as VAT on fuel, excise tax on telecoms, and the cybersecurity levy. By harmonising earmarked taxes, government is reducing duplication and ensuring a more efficient tax system.”

Why not remove the surcharge entirely?

He clarified: “Yes, the surcharge has been removed from the FERMA Act and incorporated into the new tax laws which are designed to provide a forward-looking legal framework for Nigeria. Keeping this provision in place within a harmonised legal framework ensures Nigeria is prepared to address critical challenges, such as sustainable road financing and even climate change impacts. It is not about immediate implementation, but to ensure the law provides a clear and effective framework for when it becomes necessary in the future.”

In summary, Oyedele stressed that the surcharge is not new, not immediate, and selectively applied. Its inclusion in the law is about transparency, preparedness, and sustainable funding for Nigeria’s roads, and it aims to address long-standing gaps in infrastructure financing.
(PUNCH)