Supreme court accuses PDP of using social media to bully judges

The supreme court has accused the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of using social media to bully and terrorise justices.

Inyang Okoro, justice of the supreme court, spoke on Friday while delivering judgment in an appeal filed by the PDP seeking to void the election of President-elect Bola Tinubu on the grounds that his running mate, Kashim Shettima, was guilty of double nomination.

The five-member panel of the apex court dismissed the appeal and held that the appellant had no locus standi to institute the suit.

Okoro held that the appellant tried to mislead the apex court by claiming that the lower court found that there was indeed a double nomination.

“The appellant stated to this court that the court below found that there was indeed double nomination and that the 4th respondent knowingly allowed himself to be nominated in two constituencies,” Okoro said.

“I have searched the entirety of the record and indeed the judgement of the court below and there is no such finding. To think that learned senior counsel will mislead the court is sad.

“For public policy sake, I must state that indeed the 4th (Shettima) respondent withdrew from the nomination for Borno central district on the 6th of July 2022 exhibited as exhibit APC 1 on page 58 of the record of appeal.

“The political party sent to the INEC same 6th of July, 2022 the notice of withdrawal. The political party further sent on the 10th of July 2022, a notification of dates for the conduct of fresh primaries for the senatorial district and the latter letter exhibit APC2 on page 59 of the record carried the reference of Exhibit APC1.

“That is as at the 6th of July, 2022 there was no longer nomination of the 4th respondent for Borno central senatorial distict and there could not have been double nomination on the 14th of July 2022.

“Using the social media to terrorize and bully the justices of the supreme court by the appellant is appalling and unprofessional.

“The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. I abide by the award of cost in the lead judgement.”