A coalition of civil society groups that monitored the March 2023 elections in Nasarawa state has objected to the recent verdict by the election petition tribunal, where a two-to-one split decision ruled in favour of unseating the incumbent governor, Abdullahi Sule.
In a conversation with The Nation in Abuja, Francisca Ogbu, the leader of the coalition comprising ten observer groups, along with Alhaji Abdul Suleiman, its director of information, voiced their reservations about the fairness and impartiality of the tribunal’s decision.
They emphasised their belief in the wisdom reflected in the minority ruling of the election petition tribunal, which favoured Governor Sule, the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate.
While underscoring that the coalition is not pre-judging the ongoing matter before the Court of Appeal, they firmly expressed the conviction that accepting the judgment delivered by the lead Justices in their majority would amount to endorsing a significant injustice against Governor Sule and the majority of voters who supported him.”
On behalf of members of the observer groups that include Vote Count Campaign Organization, Polling Units Ambassadors, Civil Society for Good Governance and Budget Monitoring, Women for Change Initiatives, and Initiative for Good Governance and Accountability, they applauded Governor Sule’s decision to go to a higher court and questioned the rationale behind the two tribunal judges’ vote in favour of Governor Sule’s removal.
According to the coalition, it may be particularly faulty for them to base their conclusions on a decision to admit witness submissions even after the statutory 21-day period for such submissions had elapsed.
The coalition, however, commended Governor Sule’s choice to appeal to a higher court.
They also raised concerns about the reasoning behind the two tribunal judges’ decision to vote in favour of Governor Sule’s removal.
The coalition pointed out potential flaws in the basis of their conclusions, particularly the admission of witness submissions after the statutory 21-day period had already passed.
“It was incorrect for the majority judges to allow the testimony of subpoenaed witnesses without requiring them to make a statement on oath; the learned judges also failed to adhere to established legal principles, such as the decision in the Peter Obi case, which clearly states that subpoenaed witnesses should not be considered as court witnesses but rather as witnesses of the petitioners.
“These witnesses may be perceived as attempting to surreptitiously amend the petitioners’ case, in a way that could be likened to changing the rules of a game midway through.”
The Civil Society groups pointed out there are issues over the inadmissibility of documents tendered by individuals who were not the original creators of those documents, arguing that, according to the law, only the creators of such documents should be allowed to present them as evidence.
They stated: “The majority judgment failed to adequately consider this legal requirement and another issue with the majority judgment is with regards to the polling agents and supervisors presented as witnesses by the petitioners; these witnesses did not fulfil the requirements of the Electoral Act, which mandates that polling agents and supervisors must be agents of political parties.
“The majority judgment, the group asserted, did not give proper consideration to this aspect of the law and erroneously expunged pertinent evidence.”
