• ‘Appeal Court judgment unfair’
• Apex court hearing for Tuesday
Plateau State Governor Caleb Manasseh Mutfwang has urged the Supreme Court to uphold his election.
He said of eight issues distilled before the Court of Appeal, only one was determined and others were untouched.
He said the decision of the Court of Appeal was contrary to the directive of the Supreme Court that intermediate courts should pronounce on all issues placed before it.
He said since he was not given a fair hearing by the Appellate Court, its decision to nullify his election as governor was manifestly flawed.
Mutfwang, who made the submission in his brief at the Supreme Court by an eight-man team of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, said: “The law is settled that wherever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy.”
A three-member tribunal on September 22, 2023, unanimously upheld the election of Governor Mutfwang.
Read Also: FG partners China for new Steel Plant
But the Court of Appeal on November 19 sacked the governor and declared the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Nentawe Yilwatda, as the winner.
Mutfwang, however, faulted the Court of Appeal judgment and asked the Supreme Court to restore his mandate.
The apex court, has fixed Tuesday for hearing in the matter.
Through his legal team, led by Kanu Agabi (SAN), the governor said when he presented eight issues before the Court of Appeal, only one was considered to invalidate his election.
The governor’s brief reads in part: “Eight issues were distilled and placed before the court below for determination.
“Unfortunately, only one issue (of jurisdiction) was determined by the court below leaving untouched seven issues.
“This court has stated in a number of cases that intermediate courts should pronounce on all issues placed before them.
“They should not restrict it to one or more issues which its opinion may dispose of the matter.
“This is to give the apex court the benefit of their views in the matter should there be a need to consider other issues not determined by the intermediate court.”
Mutfwang insisted that since he was not given a fair hearing, the Supreme Court should dismiss the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which invalidated his election.
He added: “It is our further submission that having denied fair hearing to the appellant with respect to the Notice of Preliminary Objection as well as a motion to strike out the incompetent grounds of appeal, the decision of the lower court to dismiss same is, with all due respect, manifestly flawed.
“The implication of denial of fair hearing renders proceedings null and void.
“We respectfully urge the Honourable Court to invoke its powers in Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act by upholding the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the appellant embedded in his Brief before the lower court and also granting the Motion of the appellant filed on 2nd November 2023 before the lower court by striking out Grounds 1 – 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal of the first and second respondents.”
Mutfwang listed eight reasons why the Supreme Court should validate his election.
He said: “The issue of nomination and sponsorship which underpinned Ground 1 of the petition is not only a pre-election issue but within the internal affairs of the fourth respondent and as such the first and second respondents lacked the locus standi to canvass it.
“The judgment of the lower court delivered on 19th November, 2023 is fatally flawed for want of jurisdiction having regard to Section 285(2) of the Constitution (supra).
“Disobedience of court order is not one of the grounds for maintaining election petition under Section 134 of the Electoral Act (supra) nor is it part of Section 177(c) of the Constitution (supra), let alone disqualifying the appellant from contesting the election.
“At any rate, given the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence including but not limited to EXHIBITS U and 2RA3, the fourth respondent complied with EXHIBIT G1 by conducting State Congress on 25th September 2021 in Plateau State.
“The evidence of PW16 was thoroughly discredited and controverted and as such the lower court was clearly in the wrong to have heavily relied on it against the appellant.
“The first and second respondents woefully failed to discharge the requisite burden of proof on them and as such not entitled to the reliefs sought in their petition more so that having impugned the election as invalid for non-compliance, it is absurd of them to lay claim to victory for the same election.
“The lower court was, with all due respect, in grave error when it held that the tribunal was wrong in striking out the offensive paragraphs of appellant’s reply and in utilising evidence of PW16, PW24, PW27 and PW28 as a tribunal of first instance.
“The lower court denied fair hearing to the appellant by dismissing his Notice of Preliminary Objection as well as Motion to strike out certain grounds of the Notice of Appeal of the 1st and 2nd Respondents without properly considering same.”
The governor’s lawyers said they attached enough evidence to prove that the Court of Appeal should not have cancelled his election.
They submitted: “We have demonstrably shown in this brief that, to all intents and purposes, the judgment of the lower court, with the greatest respect, has occasioned injustice of unquantifiable magnitude to the Appellant.
“The law is settled that wherever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy. This principle of law which is of considerable antiquity is expressed in the Latin maxim, ubi jus, ibi remedium.
“We, therefore, most respectfully urge the Honourable Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court and thereupon affirm the appellant as the duly elected Governor of Plateau State.”
