REPORT ON ISSUES RAISED IN BAT/SHETTIMA'S FINAL ADDRESS

ISSUE 2: Qualification of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (BAT/Shett) to contest the presidential election of February 25, 2023.

1. Introduction

The second issue presented in BAT/Shettima's final address pertains to the eminence of the 2nd and 3rd respondents' qualifications to run for the presidential election. The arguments put forth by BAT/Shettima are summarized below:

2. Lack of Registration of US Judgment

BAT/Shettima's argument commenced with a discussion on the registration of the judgment from the United States (US) proceedings, emphasizing the requirement for registration in Nigeria as stipulated by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ordinance and Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act. However, they contended that since the judgment did not require enforcement in Nigeria, registration was unnecessary. Supporting their stance, BAT/Shettima cited various cases, including Grosvenor Casinos Ltd. v. Halaoui, Ogidi v. State, Sonnar v. Partenreedri M.S. Norwind, and invoked sections 248 and 249 of the Evidence Act to address the lack of evidence regarding the second respondent's conviction.

3. Nature of Proceedings and Conviction

BAT/Shettima further argued that even if the court deemed the judgment admissible, the proceedings it referred to were civil in nature and did not constitute a conviction under Section 137 of the constitution. They asserted that the petitioners (LP/Obi) failed to meet the conditions precedent for proving criminal allegations, thereby suggesting the need for another trial. Additionally, BAT/Shettima attempted to undermine the credibility of LP's witness (PW1) by emphasizing his limited visits to the US compared to their own US attorney and counselor. To support their claim, they presented Exhibit RA9, a letter from US authorities attesting to the second respondent's clean criminal record.

4. Non Conviction Based Forfeiture (NCBF)

The respondents then sought to draw a parallel between Tinubu's circumstances in the US and Non Conviction Based Forfeiture (NCBF) under Nigerian law. They highlighted the alleged breach of Section 137(d) of the constitution, which pertained to the imposition of a fine for an offense involving dishonesty or fraud. However, it is worth noting that the respondents' attempt to create issues was unnecessary. They referenced sections 13(1)(d) and 24 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004 (EFCC Act), section 48 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, and section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act 2006 to support their argument. The respondents also asserted that a forfeiture action can be initiated independently of a related criminal case.

5. Expiration of Conviction and Right of Entry

Addressing the scenario of a conviction, BAT/Shettima contended that Section 137(1)(e) would prevent the court from considering it, as the conviction would have expired after 10 years. However, it is important to note that the petitioners raised this issue under Section 137(1)(d) rather than (e), leading the respondents on another unrelated argument. The respondents concluded this aspect of their argument by presenting Exhibit RA13-RA16, which highlighted Tinubu's unrestricted right of entry and exit from the USA, implying that he could not enjoy such rights if burdened by criminal forfeiture.

6. Double Nomination of 3rd Respondent (Shettima)

Regarding the double nomination of the 3rd respondent (Shettima), BAT/Shettima contended that his withdrawal was communicated to the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) and the APC through a letter dated July 6, 2022. They emphasized that this date should be considered the official withdrawal, despite the later submission of the INEC letter. Citing the Supreme Court judgment (Exhibit RA23) on the double nomination issue, the respondents argued that Shettima's letter to Tinubu and the APC constituted the withdrawal itself, while the APC's letter to INEC served as a conveyance of the withdrawal. They urged the court to rule in their favor on this issue.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, BAT/Shettima presented arguments challenging the eminence of the 2nd and 3rd respondents' qualifications to contest the presidential election. Their arguments involved the lack of registration of the US judgment, the nature of the proceedings and conviction, the application of Non Conviction Based Forfeiture (NCBF), the expiration of a conviction, and the issue of double nomination. They supported their claims with relevant cases, legal provisions, and exhibits.