•Appellate court, APC dismiss it as clertical eroor

From Desmond Mgboh, Kano and Romanus Ugwu and Godwin Tsa, Abuja

The New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) has faulted the judgment of the Appeal Court, which sacked Abba Kabir Yusuf, saying the judgment orally delivered differed from what is contained in the Certified True Copy (CTC) issued to them.

Confusion had trailed the Kano Appeal Court judgment on Tuesday following the contradictions in the CTC when the appellate court upheld the decision of the petition tribunal sacking Governor Yusuf, and still affirmed his victory at the poll.

Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, Haruna Isah Dederi, at a press conference in Kano on Tuesday night insisted that the victory of the NNPP in Kano remains valid.

He said: “Judgment was given in respect of all our four appeals, the one filed by the governor, the appeal filed by our party, NNPP, the appeal filed by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). All these three are because of their disagreement with the outcome of the verdict of the tribunal made on September 20.

“There was also a cross appeal by the All Progressives Congress (APC). All these appeals were heard and judgment in respect of each one of them was reserved.

“On the 17th of this month, Friday specifically, judgment was read. Now that everything has come to limelight, we have got copies of the judgment from the court of appeal.

“Unfortunately, in respect of the appeal of His Excellency, we have found out now that the judgment of the Court of Appeal really sets aside the judgment of the tribunal.

“I think there is a snag here. While in the court, we were told the judgment of the tribunal was affirmed, the Certified True Copy of the judgment in respect of the appeal of Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf against APC and two others has shown the judgment of the tribunal was set aside. That is specifically on page 67 of the judgment.

“We are yet to be aware of the judgment with regards to the other appeals. Our lawyers have already commenced action with respect to this to file an appeal with the Supreme Court in respect of the appeal verdict.”

He said with what is contained in the CTC of the judgment given to them by the Appeal Court, Yusuf is the legitimate governor as the Appeal Court has set aside the judgment sacking him by the election petition tribunal earlier in September.  

“This means there is nothing that will interfere with his position, status and his chair as the legitimate governor of the state. That is the implication,” he said.

Appeal Court clears air

The Abuja division of the appeal court has said what happened in the judgment body was a clerical error that did not in anyway invalidate or change the findings and conclusion of the Court.

The Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Umar Mohammed Bangari, who spoke on the issue, assured that the clerical error would be rectified once parties in the matter file formal application to that effect.

He drew the attention of newsmen to Order 23 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal HandBook which empowers the court to correct any clerical error once detected by the court or any of the party in the matter.

“The court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it, save to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. A judgment or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the court decided nor shall the operative substantive part of it be varied and a different form substituted.”

Bangari, however, insisted that contrary to insinuations, the judgment of the court remains valid.

APC reacts

Reacting to the confusion, the APC hinged, what it called minor typographical error, on pressure of the justices.

Its National Legal Adviser, Abdulkareem Abubakar Kana, who spoke to journalists at the national secretariat of the party in Abuja, yesterday, disclosed that though the ruling party has not received the CTC, the party has formally requested the true copy to take the next line of action.

On where the controversy must have emanated, the legal adviser said: “Who do you suspect must have interfered with the CTC? We don’t want to create a situation that will add to the controversy again. As far as we are concerned, we will view it as a mere typographical error probably from where it was typed.

“The justices are under intense pressure. This is a 72-page judgment declared after going through thousand pages of submissions from different lawyers from the appellant side to the respondents’ side. It is in addition to recordings of proceedings within a period of one month. I think there must have been errors from the judges.” Asked if the party has formally sought for correction of the misleading portion of the judgment, he said: “As far as my office is concerned, we have not received an official copy of the certified true copy of the judgment. But we will write and get a copy.

“If the copy that will be conveyed to us still contains this error, we will take steps eventually. What we will do and we have done right now, is to write to demand the CTC. Until the CTC containing that error, which is being bandied around, before we will now know what to do next..

“But, I will suggest whoever may have received the CTC containing that error, if he was an appropriate person and entitled to a copy would have taken necessary steps. I will say the court should have taken the necessary steps to make corrections.

“The merits and other facts of judgment of the tribunal which was delivered on September 28, the appeal upheld. And then if you read through the entirety of the judgment from lead justice, my lord analysed the submissions of different cited cases and arrived at appropriate findings. It gives you an idea what the conclusion should be.

“But that is not all. If you read the concurring judgments by two justices, because there are three judges who sat over the appeal, the two justices had explained and clarified their positions.

“If you really read the findings of my lord honourable justice, the judgment of my lord, Bitrus Sanga, who said he has read the judgment of my lord, Aseimo and I agree with him completely.”