Kano: Appeal Court reserves judgment in Gov Yusuf’s appeal

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

The Abuja division of the Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in the appeal by the Kano State Governor, Abba Yusuf, challenging his removal by the state Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal.

A three-member panel of the tribunal led by Justice Oluyemi Akintan Osadebay had in its judgment of September 20, nullified Yusuf’s election by declaring 165,663 of his votes invalid.

It held that the ballot papers used were neither signed nor stamped by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

Consequently, the tribunal unanimously declared the All Progressives Congress, APC, candidate, Nasiru Gawuna, winner of the governorship election.

However dissatisfied with the judgment, governor Yusuf appealed the tribunal verdict and urged the court to set aside the judgment.

At the resumed hearing of the appeal on Monday, lead counsel to the governor, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, urged the court to set aside the judgment of the tribunal contending that it created a new jurisprudence that departs from the precedent set by the appeal court and the apex court with its judgment.

Olanipekun furthed submitted that it was the first time an election would be nullified based on non-stamping and signing of ballot papers.

He also held that the tribunal erred in referring to section 71 of the Electoral Act and citing decisions arising from the section.

According to him, the section cited relates to electoral forms and sum sheets, adding that there was no meeting point between that and the ballot papers.

In addition, he argued that this was the first time that a political party filed a matter without joining its candidate as a party in the petition and the latter was declared winner of the polls.

Olanipekun, however, urged the court not to allow the judgment of the lower court to stand.

But in his own submission, lead counsel to Nasiru Gawauna, Chief Akin Olujuimi, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the tribunal.

Olujimi submitted “Contrary to the contention that the tribunal created a jurisprudence, the decision of this court right from 2009 laid it down under the regulation of INEC has set up what presiding officers are to do at the point of casting of votes. It said signatures and stamps must be on ballot papers with dates. And this court has heard that failure to do this is a clear case of non-compliance. It is not a new jurisprudence.”

He contended that INEC admitted that the ballot papers were invalid, urging the court to dismiss the appeal.

He also argued that section 71 alluded to by the lower court rather than section 63 should not be a basis for the nullification of the court’s decision.

“The wrong reference to section 71 should not have anything to do with the validity of the decision,” Olujuimi added.

Responding to Olanipekun’s submission that the candidate was not joined in the case, Olujimi said it is settled law that votes are cast for the party in an election and that any decision affecting a political party embraces all its members.

In the APC’s cross-appeal, Olujimi also argued before the court that the Kano State governor was not a member of the NNPP as of the time he was sponsored by the party.

Counsel for INEC AB Mahmoud, SAN, asked the appeal court to dismiss APC’s cross-appeal, adding that it was lacking in merit.

Meanwhile, the electoral in its appeal urged the appellate court to allow its appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court.

Its lead counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, argued that the tribunal turned the election jurisprudence law upside down with its judgment.

“What the court did was outside the scope of the tribunal. The electoral Act does not permit the tribunal to embark on this scrutiny or recount.

“We want this court to correct the anomaly and set the jurisprudence right. I urge the court to allow this appeal as it is preeminently meritorious and set aside the judgment of the lower court,” he added.
Counsel for the APC, Offiong Offiong urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

He argued that a trial court can investigate documents submitted as evidence to it.

The court, however, reserved judgments in all the matters till a date that would be communicated to parties involved in the appeal.