The star witness in the defence of President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima before the presidential election petition court says Peter Obi was still a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as of April 30, 2022, when the Labour Party submitted its membership register to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The witness, also newly appointed Senate majority leader Bamidele Opeyemi, told the court that Mr Obi was a member of the PDP in Anambra State until May 25, 2022, 25 days after the Labour Party submitted its register to INEC as required by the law.

Per the requirements of section 99 (2&3) of the Electoral Act, political parties are expected to have submitted their party’s register not later than 30 days before its convention and primary election.

The Labour Party conducted its primaries on May 30, and to fulfil the legal requirements, it would have submitted its register to INEC by April 30, a time when Mr Obi was still a card-carrying member of the PDP.

The Tinubu/Shettima legal team argued that Mr Obi fell short of being a valid member of the Labour Party as his name could not have been on the list submitted to INEC and therefore did not validly contest the presidential nomination of the party.

However, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal said Mr Obi did not violate electoral law, even though he became the Labour’s presidential candidate on May 30, less than a month after he joined the party. The electoral law specified that an aspirant must have been a member of a political party for at least 30 days to be eligible to be a candidate.

The tribunal commenced hearing the defences of the respondents in the petitions against the conduct and result of the February 25 presidential election on July 3. Two days into the hearing, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Mr Tinubu’s lawyer put up a no-holds-barred defence to safeguard its victory.

Analysts are debating what the impact of Mr Bamidele’s testimony could be on the case, but a recent Supreme Court ruling is able to set the issues into perspective for close observers.

In a ruling delivered on May 26, the apex court ruled that opposition parties could not interfere in the internal matters of rival political parties, especially when they have not adequately demonstrated that they suffered an injury due to the opposition parties actions.

The ruling gave an in-depth understanding of matters concerning the validity of membership of the party and contest its nomination and decided that it may as well be the strict business of the party in question, except it violates an electoral regulation.

The ruling further clarified that even when such matters violate INEC’s extant regulations, opposition parties cannot exploit them to their own advantage except if they are able to demonstrate that they suffered injury in the course of the action.