The People's Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit forcing the Independent National Electoral Commission to bar All Progressives Congress presidential candidate Bola Tinubu; and Labor Party flag bearer Peter Obi to replace their running mates with Senator Kashim Shettima and Senator Datti Baba-Ahmed respectively.

The PDP is also asking the court to declare that Tinubu and Obi will be disqualified unless they compete alongside their previous running mates - Kabiru Masari and Doyin Okupe respectively.

In the original subpoena with case number FHC/ABJ/CS/1016/2022, the PDP seeks an order barring the Independent National Electoral Commission from replacing running mates of Tinubu and Obi .

Those listed from first to seventh defendants in the case are INEC, APC, Tinubu, Masari, Labor Party, Obi and Okupe.

Recall that Tinubu named Masari as a substitute running mate or placeholder in order to beat INEC's June 17 deadline. Obi had also named his campaign manager, Okupe, as his acting running mate. However, INEC granted a grace period of approximately one month to substitute their names.

After weeks of consultations, Tinubu and Obi appointed Shettima and Baba-Ahmed respectively while Masari and Okupe resigned.

However, the PDP asked the court to determine whether, by the combined interpretation of Article 142(1) of the constitution, Articles 29(1), 31 and 33 of the 2022 electoral law and the INEC timetable, Tinubu and Obi are bound by the submission of Masari and Okupe respectively as running mates.

The party also asked the court to determine whether "by the combined interpretation of Section 142(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Sections 29(1), 31 , 33 of the Electoral Act 2022, the first defendant (INEC) may validly accept any change or substitution of the 4th (Masari) and 7th (Okupe) defendants as running mates of the 3rd (APC) and 6th (Labour Party) defendants.”

The PDP also seeks five remedies, including a statement that, by the combined interpretation of Article 142(1) of the constitution, Article 29(1), 31 and 33 of the Electoral Law of 2022 and the INEC timetable, Tinubu and Obi must be bound by their submission.

The party has asked the court to rule that Tinubu and Obi will be disqualified when they substitute the names of their running mates.

One ​​of the reliefs reads: "A statement that by the combined interpretation of Section 142(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as as amended), articles 29 (1), 31, 33 of the electoral law of 2022, the electoral calendar of the 1st defendant (INEC), the 3rd (Tinubu) and 6th (Obi) cannot validly contest the presidential election of 2023 without the 4th (Masari) and 7th (Obi) Respondents as respective candidates. Buddies."

The PDP also based its argument on the fact that the term "placeholder" is unknown to Nigerian law.

"The Elections Act makes no provision for placeholders or temporary running mates. The acts of the 2nd (APC), 3rd (Tinubu), 5th (Labour Party) and 6th (Obi) accused in the nomination and transmission of the names of the 4th (Masari) and 7th (Okupe) accused as running mates for the 2023 presidential election the elections are valid and stand,” the party added.

In a supporting affidavit signed by Evelyn Oroh, litigation secretary at the law firm Gordy Uche (SAN), it was stated that some of the defendants openly stated that they did not were just placeholders.

"I know that the 3rd (Tinubu) and 6th (Obi) defendants have stated in interviews and media publications that the 4th (Masari) and 7th (Okupe) defendants are not their real running mates , but simply holding the place as a placeholder for true running mates,” he said.

Contacted by telephone, Labor Party lawyer Alex Ejesieme said he had received the legal proceedings.

"I have received the processes and we are already filing a response", he simply said.

Tinubu's campaign organization legal chief Babatunde Ogala (SAN) said he was aware of the lawsuit when contacted by one from our correspondents on Thursday.

Ogala, a former APC legal adviser, however, said Tinubu's legal team had not received notice from the court. "Yes, I'm aware (of the matter). But they didn't serve us. When asked to confirm the service, he repeated, 'They didn't.'