The former Minister of State for Education, Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba, and the civil group, Rights for All International, had alleged that Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party were not qualified to contest for the presidential elections based on certain constitutional provisions.
Nwajiuba and the civil group argued that Tinubu did not possess the requisite educational qualification to contest for the office of the President, while Abubakar was alleged to have been indicted by the United States Senate for corruption.
The case has been dismissed by the Federal High Court, Abuja, and the Court of Appeal, which both held that the suit was statute-barred and that Nwajiuba lacked the locus standi to institute the suit.
Dissatisfied with the decisions of the lower courts, Nwajiuba and the civil group approached the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the processes that produced Tinubu and Abubakar as presidential candidates of their political parties.
However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the decisions of the lower courts, stating that the case was filed outside the time prescribed by law and therefore, statute-barred.
Justice Okoro, in his lead judgment, held that the suit was “dead on arrival” and lacked any legal basis, adding that the court was not empowered to entertain the suit.
He further stated that the Constitution provides for a time limit within which an election dispute can be brought before a court of law, and that the appellants failed to comply with the provisions of the law.
Although the court dismissed the appeal, it declined to award costs against the former Minister, Nwajiuba, for withdrawing his case after he was informed that it was filed outside the time prescribed by law. The decision of the Supreme Court finally put to rest the controversy surrounding the eligibility of Tinubu and Abubakar to contest for the presidential elections, and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts