The Nation Newspaper

Tag: judgment

  • ‘Judgment against me is political’

    ‘Judgment against me is political’

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) deputy governorship candidate in the November 21, 2015 governorship election, James Abiodun Faleke, is set for the Supreme Court to challenge the Appeal Court judgment declaring Yahaya Bello as duly elected Kogi governor.

    He described the judgment as political.

    In a statement by his Director Media, Duro Meseko, he said: “This judgment as you all can see is a political judgment and cannot stand the test of time.

    “We strongly condemn the judgment and believe that the Supreme Court that is the custodian of Nigeria constitution and the court of the people would do justice to our case.”

    Faleke decried what he called the undue political influence being exerted on the judges by some highly- placed government officials in the Presidency, calling on President Muhammadu Buhari to call them to order.

    “I am calling on President Muhammadu Buhari to do justice to Nigerians, to do justice to Kogites by immediately calling his ministers and other top government officials to order, especially the Minister of Justice , Abubakar Malami, who has been advising government wrongly on these issues. The day before the lower Tribunal gave judgment, June 5, 2016, Malami granted an interview in The Nation where he analysed the Kogi tribunal issue and what he said was exactly what the judges did the following day.”

    Faleke said it was inconceivable that the president who has been complaining to global audiences on the nation’s judiciary would find it difficult to rein in his ministers who are interfering in judicial issues”.

    He said it was curious for the Appeal Court to hold that INEC manual for elections as a coordinate locus as the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Citing section 187 of the constitution, Faleke said it was wrong  for the appellate court to rule that he could not be declared winner because he did not participate in the primaries since the Constitution already recognises deputy governorship candidates as “candidates” who in the eyes of the law have participated in primaries.

    Faleke expressed elation that the Court of Appeal ruled on the vexed issue of locus standi declaring that he has locus to challenge the outcome of the election.

    He appealed to his supporters to be calm and go about their normal businesses, saying that, “at last, victory shall be ours at the Supreme Court.”

  • Judgment in another tax certificate case against Abia governor July 18 

    Judgment in another tax certificate case against Abia governor July 18 

    Justice A.I Alagoa of the Federal High Court sitting in Owerri, has fixed July 8 to give judgment in another tax certificate forgery case against  Abia State Governor Okezie Ikpeazu.

    The suit was filed by another Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain and governorship aspirant, Mr Friday Nwosu.

    Nwosu, who contested in the December 8, 2014 PDP governorship primaries had accused the governor of submitting a forged tax clearance certificate. He prayed the court to disqualify him. Joined in the suit are the PDP, Independent National Election Commission, (INEC), and Dr. Uche Ogah as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4thdefendants.

    The parties adopted their written addresses. Counsel to Nwosu, Mr. Unyimdau prayed the court to grant the prayers of his client by disqualifying Ikpeazu for submitting forged tax certificate and declare him governor. Unyimadu added that the governor was not qualified to run for the primary election.

    He argued that Ogah who refused to sign the result and petitioned the PDP to conduct another primary election, had forfeited his right to benefit from the outcome.

    In their separate arguments, Counsels to PDP, INEC, Ikpeazu and Ogah, Paul Ananaba (SAN), Jude Nnodum (SAN), Theo Nkire and O.J. Nnadi(SAN),  said Nwosu’s suit lacked merit and urged the court to dismiss it. The counsel had opposed an attempt by Ogah’s lawyer to leverage on the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja which declared him governor. This was upheld by the Judge who ruled that he was not bound by the verdict of a court of the same hierarchy.

    In a related development, Nwosu has filed a notice of appeal on the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja which declared Ogah as governor, praying the court to set it aside and declare him governor.

  • Still on the Supreme Court judgment on elections

    SIR: Some Supreme Court decisions have caused great frustrations and confusion and produced much disarray in law enforcement and criminal justice procedures. They placed strained, if not distorted constructions on the constitution, overruled long established judicial precedents, and shocked law enforcement agents; and by dubiously invoking specious procedural technicalities and grossly exaggerating the legitimate virtues of civil liberties, confessed and confirmed criminals have been released on society.

    In my opinion, the recent Supreme Court decision on the recent 2015 gubernatorial elections, especially, the  case of Rivers State have done more than any other single thing to contribute to a general atmosphere of electoral crime in this country. When electoral criminals and their accomplices know that they can commit electoral crimes and may not be apprehended, but if apprehended stand a good chance of being allowed to get off a mere technicality, it only encourages more electoral crime, vis-à-vis, ballot snatching/stuffing, kidnap of electoral umpire/officials, killing, maiming and arson etc. The ‘wise men’ of the Supreme Court choose to close their eyes on the magnitude of violence that marred the Rivers State gubernatorial elections, based on the reason(s) best known to them, only for them to come around and give us some strange reasons.

    No wonder, they say the law is an “ass”; it punishes the innocent, and sets the guilty free.

    A situation where, election observers, both local and international including two courts – the Tribunal and Appeal court, and other Nigerians alike are wrong, by saying the election was below standards by all ramifications, they still went ahead to deliver the judgment the way it suits them.

    As a concerned Nigerian, my only fear is not the morning of the judgment, but the evening. In other words, anybody can contest an election, and decide to win by ‘hook and crook’, including displaying all arsenals within his reach, bearing in mind that if he goes to court, especially the ‘Supreme’, he will get justice, using the services of the best ‘learned’ intelligent and erudite Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN’s) that money can buy. What a pity!

    It is no more news that the states of Rivers, Bayelsa, in the South/South region and Kogi in the North Central are prone to electoral violence/malpractice. And they are also dens of cultists. Very recently, a group of cultist killed over 20 people, during clash with one of the rival group, in Omoku, near Port Harcourt, in Rivers State. Has the Apex Court not legalized electoral violence and other related crimes through the back door by applying the so-called technicalities of law as usual? God save Nigerian/Nigerians from our judiciary. What a hope of the so-called common man indeed!

    I am not for or against Governor Wike or Candidate Peterside, either PDP or APC. Far from that, but to ensure that our votes count in future elections in Nigeria. This time around the Apex Court did not get it right – period! And they must accept our criticism in good faith.

     

    • Engineer U.S Ladan (Snr),

    Jos.

  • Senate leadership suit: Ekweremadu to arrest judgment

    Senate leadership suit: Ekweremadu to arrest judgment

    The Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, has taken steps to arrest the planned judgment by a Federal High Court in Abuja in a suit seeking to sack the leadership of the Upper Chamber.

    In his latest move, Ekweremadu has asked the judge handling the case, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, to disqualify himself from further presiding over the case, in which he (the judge) had taken arguments from parties and reserved judgment.

    Ekweremadu, in his fresh letter to the court, made sundry allegations against the judge and his wife, including accusing him among others, of being close to the ruling All progressives Congress (APC) and its leadership.

    The Deputy Senate President, The Nation learnt, had earlier written the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, seeking the immediate transfer of the suit from Justice Ademola, a request Justice Auta turned down on the ground that it was frivolous.

    Before now, the APC had similarly accused Justice Ademola of being sympathetic to the Peoples Democratic Party particularly when he in a judgment in April 2014 faulted the defection of 41 PDP lawmakers to the APC and ordered them to vacate their seats.

    The suit was initiated by the PDP against the House of Representatives, its principal officers and the defecting legislators. The party had sought primarily to frustrate the alleged move by the defecting lawmakers to initiate changes in the leadership of the House.

    But, in this case, five APC senators, led by Abu Ibrahim, sued the leadership of the Senate, contending that the Senate’s Standing Orders 2015, on which Saraki and Ekweremadu were elected, was forged because the previous Orders were never amended before the Clerk of the Senate allegedly surreptitiously introduced the 2015 Rules.

    The plaintiffs are, by the suit, challenging the election of Saraki and Ekweremadu as Senate President and Deputy Senate President. They want the court to set aside the election.

  • Still on Abia tribunal judgment

    Many commentators, especially legal experts have continued to air their views regarding some of the judgments delivered by both the Houses of Assembly/National Assembly and the governorship tribunals that sat in Umuahia, Abia State recently.

    It is normal for people, both experts and laymen to try to scrutinize election tribunal judgments because they have alot to do with our democracy and leadership which centre on ensuring the well-being of the people.

    It would be recalled that while the governorship case was pending at the tribunal, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and her candidate Alex Otti who were challenging the victory of the Peoples Democratic Party’s candidate Okezie Ikpeazu, filed a motion to inspect the materials used in one of the contentious LGAs of Obingwa. Their request was granted by the tribunal, and after series of delay and frustration by INEC, they agreed to grant APGA legal team and forensic experts access to the materials. Unfortunately this legitimate order was flouted as thugs suspected to be working for the PDP assaulted the APGA legal team, and prevented them from assessing those sensitive materials needed.

    This development no doubt frustrated APGA as they were forced to return to the tribunal to seek another order compelling INEC to bring the materials to the tribunal premises for inspection. Unfortunately, less than 24 hours to the time the order was to be carried out, some arsonists stormed the INEC office in broad day light and set the place ablaze.

    APGA and her candidate were left with the option of requesting for materials of the other LGAs which were later brought for inspection after PDP and some INEC staff were said to have connived and mixed up the materials to frustrate the inspection.

    Having suffered avoidable delays as a result of INEC and PDPs unwillingness to obey the orders of the tribunal on time, APGA and her candidate, prayed for time extension to bring more witnesses. Shockingly, this motion was turned down by the tribunal under the pretence that the parties were granted  seven days each to present their witnesses, and that having exhausted theirs, APGA would not be given additional time.

    The tribunal took such a terrible decision without first of all considering that by the provisions of the electoral act, each of the parties was entitled to 14 days for presentation of witnesses.  Again, the tribunal denied the extension of time without recourse to the delay tactics applied by INEC and the defence team who were never punished for their disobedience and lack of diligence.

    The tribunal did not also reason that the petitioner’s legal team was given only seven days to face the three joined parties of Okezie Ikpeazu, PDP, and INEC  who were allocated separate number of days during the presentation of witnesses.

    Surprisingly, the tribunal that claimed it was running out of time added extra four days to the date earlier agreed for adoption of written addresses, after claiming that Abia judiciary wanted to use the tribunal complex for a certain activities that ought not to have interfered with the tribunal time table; the same tribunal that denied APGA time extension.

    To climax what could be described as an absurdity of legal proceedings, the tribunal repeatedly used the word “re-run” against APGA while delivering it’s judgement, when it was obvious that no re-run took place in Abia.

    The tribunal refused to align with APGA and her candidate in the case of Osisoma LGA where it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the PDP L.G collation agent and their House of Assembly candidate signed the results of the entire 10 wards of the LGA instead of the ward collation agent as prescribed by the Electoral Act, the tribunal did not just give their blessing on the grievous electoral crime, but also accepted the lies of the LGA and ward collation  agents of PDP who were caught  red-handed lying under oath.

    The over 80,000 votes fraudulently allocated to PDP and her candidate is one result that should alarm any unbiased mind even without going through the details of the election considering the pattern of voting and election results in the last election across the country, let alone the LGA in question, Obingwa LGA.

    As expected during the tribunal proceedings, the result from Obingwa was exposed to the world as fake when a staff of INEC from Abuja appeared before the tribunal and tendered a gazzetted INEC document in evidence which clearly contradicted and indicted the result earlier declared.

    Unfortunately the same tribunal that accepted and never disputed the content of the document ignored its undisputed facts while delivering its judgment.

    In the case of Chief NnamdiIro Orji, the APGA candidate for Arochukwu/Ohafia constituency, the National Assembly tribunal shocked everyone when it rejected the pink copies of the election results tendered by APGA showing the original results as earlier given by the INEC presiding officers before the fraudulaent results were announced by Senior INEC Officers in the state.

    Again, in one of the INEC result sheets that bore a report written by the INEC officer in charge, it clearly listed details of votes as scored by the individual political parties and clearly showed that APGA won in all the polling units of the areas in question. The INEC staff also detailed how some agents of the PDP came and snatched the result sheets, and subsequently entered fraudulently figures which contradicted the genuine results, as the scores in figure differed in words. She subsequently used asterisk to differentiate the fake result from the original; unfortunately, the tribunal used her discretion in the most unfair manner to accept the ones marked as fake.

    In another interesting case involving the APGA candidate for Aba North State Constituency in the Abia House of Assembly, the tribunal said that it established a case of certificate forgery against the Aba candidate and thus nullified his election, ordered for fresh elections in some polling units, and subsequently barred APGA from taking part in the would be rerun election.

    However, in what looked like a selective justice and bizarre contradiction, the same tribunal  established a case of double registration and forgery against the PDP candidate for Bende North State Constituency, but did not nullify his election on that basis, rather recommended  him for trial in a regular court? Two pre-election election matters, two parties but different judgments.

    The appropriate authorities and institutions charged with ensuring justice and sanity in situations like this need to urgently look into what transpired in Abia so that a very dangerous precedent would not be set at the expense of the suffering masses. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere-so says Martin Luther King Jnr.

    • Ekeoma, a social commentator, writes from Abia State

     

  • Judgment reserved in Akwa Ibom governorship appeal

    Judgment reserved in Akwa Ibom governorship appeal

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja, has reserved ruling in five appeals arising from the judgment of the Akwa Ibom State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, which sat in Abuja.

    A five-man panel of the Appellate Court, led by Justice Uwani M. Abba–Aji, announced the reservation of the judgments after parties adopted their briefs of argument.

    The Appellate Court said it would communicate to the parties when its decisions on the appeal were ready.

    All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate in the April 11 governorship election, Umana Umana, were represented by Wole Olanipekun (SAN).

    Akwa Ibom State Governor Udom Emmanuel was represented by Damian Dodo (SAN) and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was represented by Tayo Oyetibo (SAN).

    Onyeachi Ipaezu (SAN) represented the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the State Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC).

    Olanipekun (SAN), who adopted his clients’ brief of argument, dated and filed on November 14, prayed the court to dismiss the appellant’s suit for lacking in merit.

    Adopting his client’s brief of argument, Dodo urged the court to set aside part of the judgment of the tribunal, which nullified election in 18 of the 31 local government areas.

    He urged the court to allow the appeal as meritorious and affirm Emmanuel as the duly elected governor.

    In the second appeal, INEC prayed the Appellate Court to set aside the decision of the tribunal, which nullified election results in 18 local government areas.

    In a brief of argument, dated and filed on November 13, Ipaezu urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by INEC against Umana Umana and the APC.

    In the third appeal filed by the PDP, Umana Umana, Emmanuel, INEC, the REC and police were respondents.

    Oyetibo adopted his appellant’s brief of argument, dated and filed on November 13.

    The lawyer prayed the court to oppose the appeal.

    He urged the court to dismiss the respondents’ preliminary objection, allow the appeal and set aside part of the judgment of the lower tribunal, which nullified election in 18 local government areas.

    Adopting his first and second respondents’ reply briefs, dated and filed on November 20, Olanipekun prayed the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the portion of the judgment of the lower tribunal being appealed against.

    The fourth appeal, filed by Umana Umana and the APC, has Emmanuel, the PDP, INEC, the REC and police as respondents.

    Olanipekun adopted the appellants’ brief of argument and prayed the court to discountenance the arguments contained in the first to the fourth respondents’ reply brief.

    The lawyer urged the court to0 allow the appeal and set aside the portion of the judgment of the lower tribunal, which okayed the April 11 governorship election in 13 local government areas.

    All the respondents urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

    The fifth appeal was an interlocutory appeal by Emmanuel. It has Umana Umana, APC, PDP, INEC, the REC and the police as defendants.

    Olanipekun prayed the court to uphold the first and second respondents’ objection and dismiss the appeal.

     

     

  • Judgment in The Nation’s suit against Senate holds today

    Judgment in The Nation’s suit against Senate holds today

    THE Federal High Court in Lagos will deliver judgment today in The Nation’s suit against the Senate.

    Justice Mohammed Yunusa, on November 9, adjourned after the plaintiffs’ counsel, Wahab Shittu, adopted their processes.

    But the Senate has denied being served with the suit or hearing notices.

    It prayed the court not to deliver the judgment, but to extend the time within which it “may” file and serve its counter-affidavit to the suit.

    Vintage Press Limited (publisher of The Nation), the Editor Gbenga Omotoso and a correspondent, Imam Bello, are the applicants.

    Shittu had informed the court at the last hearing that till date, the respondents were yet to file any response to the suit.

    “They have neither filed a memorandum of appearance, nor have they joined issues with the applicants. In the circumstances, we seek the leave of the court to adopt our processes,” Shittu said.

    After identifying all the motions he filed, he prayed the court to enter judgment in the plaintiffs’ favour.

    He said the Senate’s invitation to the applicants amounted to unlawful interference with the functions reserved exclusively for the press.

    Justice Yunusa had granted an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, whether by themselves, their members, committees or agents from summoning or directing the appearance of the applicants or any of their agents before any Senate Committee.

    According to the proof of service, the suit was received by the Office of the President of the Senate on September 1.

    The National Assembly was earlier served on August 27 through the Office of the Deputy Clerk to the National Assembly.

    Among the plaintiffs’ processes are a motion for interlocutory injunction, and the main suit, which seeks, among others, an order of perpetual injunction against the respondents.

    The Senate had, in an August 4 letter, invited Omotoso and Bello to appear before it unfailingly over the story: Motion: 22 APC Northern senators ‘working against Buhari’, published on July 30.

    The Senate wrote again on August 11, threatening to invoke Section 89 (1) (D) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to compel the applicants’ appearance.

    But the court barred the lawmakers from requesting the applicants to produce any papers, notes or other documents in respect of the story.

    The judge also restrained the respondents from issuing a warrant to compel the applicants’ attendance before the Senate Committee set up to investigate the publication.

    The Senate, in a motion on notice, sought an order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

    It prayed the court to set aside the proceedings, as well as its orders and decisions taken in the case so far.

    The Senate said it was “on account of non-service of the originating motion and hearing notices in this case on the second respondent/applicant herein.”

    In a supporting affidavit, Clerk of the Senate’s Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee, Freedom Osolo, said the Senate “is willing to defend this case…”

  • Appeal Court reserves judgment in Rivers governorship poll

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja, yesterday reserved judgment in an appeal filed by Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike, challenging his removal by the Election Petitions Tribunal for the state.

    The Court of Appeal’s panel, presided over by Justice Dongban Memsem, held that it would communicate the judgment date to parties in the matter.

    She said: “Ruling on motions raised by the parties and judgment is hereby reserved. The date will be communicated to parties.”

    Wike’s lawyer Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) adopted his written address and asked the court to grant the appeal.

    He urged the court to upturn the decision of the Suleiman Ambursa-led tribunal, which nullified the election of his client and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a rerun within 90 days.

    Ukala argued that the tribunal erred in law in its decision and failed to give his client fair hearing.

    He said: “Some motions we raised were never considered by the tribunal before it gave judgment. The failure to give fair hearing to our client rendered the process at the tribunal a nullity.

    “We urged the court to allow the appeal  and dismiss the objections raised by the respondents.”

    Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who represented the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), urged the court to uphold the appeal in the interest of justice.

    Counsel to Dakuku Peterside, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the election, asked the court to dismiss the appeal.

    The tribunal nullified Wike’s election, following the petition filed by Peterside.

    Chief Akinlolu Olujimi (SAN), counsel to Peterside, argued that most issues raised in the appeal did not emanate from the judgment of the tribunal.

    He urged the court to examine issues raised at the tribunal and flow from the tribunal’s decision.

    Also, counsel to APC, Yusuf Ali (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lack of merit.

     

     

  • Court reserves judgment in Gulak’s suit against PDP, Secondus

    Court reserves judgment in Gulak’s suit against PDP, Secondus

    Justice Hussein Baba of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Maitama, Abuja has reserved judgment in the suit brought by Ahmed Gulak, a former Special Adviser on Political Matters to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, against the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Gulak, by the suit, is seeking the sack of the party’s acting chairman, Uche Secondus, on the ground that by the provision of the constitution of the PDP and its zoning principle, he was the proper person to replace the last chairman, Adamu Muazu, who hailed from the Northeast geo-political zone.

    Yesterday, parties argued the plaintiff’s substantive suit (originating summons) and the defendants’ preliminary objection and adopted their final written addresses before the judge told them that hearing notices will be issued when the judgment is ready.

    Gulak, dressed in blue native attire, sat in court all through the proceedings.

    Arguing his client’s case, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) urged the court to uphold Gulak’s prayers and refuse the preliminary objection raised against the suit by the defendants – the PDP and Secondus.

    He argued that Secondus was occupying the position of the PDP chairman illegally, stressing that by virtue of the provision of Article 47(6) of the party’s constitution, “the 2nd defendant (Secondus) from Rivers State, could not replace the immediate past Chairman, Muazu, who left office about seven months ago.

    Okutepa faulted the claim of defendants’ lawyers that the party’s elders were working on a process to ensure a replacement for Muazu by next March.

    He argued that it was unlawful and a breach of the party’s constitutional provisions for Secondus to hold office for over seven months in acting capacity and refuse to allow a member from the geo-political zone, where the last chairman came from, to replace him.

    On the argument by the lawyer to the defendants, Chuwan Isaiah Paul,  that Gulak lacked the locus standi to initiate the suit, having allegedly defaulted in the payment of party’s due, Okutepa, who exhibited receipt of payments made by his client to the PDP, argued that it was wrong to state that his client, who was once lauded by the party, was no longer a member.

    He also faulted Paul’s argument that Gulak failed to explore the party’s internal mechanism for dispute resolution before approaching the court.

    He argued that since his client was challenging the constitution of the party’s leadership, it would be wrong to expect him to approach the same party mechanisms being controlled by the same leaders and expect justice to be done.

    Earlier, while arguing his objection, Paul urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that Gulak had purportedly ceased to be the party’s member, having allegedly defaulted in the payment of party’ dues.

    He also argued that the plaintiff could not approach the court, except he had exhausted the party’s internal mechanisms for dispute resolution because the issue in dispute was within the party’s internal affairs.

    In response to the originating summons, Paul urged the court to refuse Gulak’s prayers on the ground that he has failed to show  any part of the party’s constitution, which his clients breached with the retention of Secondus as the party’s acting chairman.

    He cited Article 45(2) of the party’s constitution to support his position that there was no time limit within which an acting chairman could remain in office before a replacement was found for a former chairman within the zoning framework of the party.

     

  • Tribunal: Taraba group asks Appeal Court to reverse judgment

    Tribunal: Taraba group asks Appeal Court to reverse judgment

    A group in Jalingo, Taraba state capital yesterday asked the Court of Appeal to reverse the tribunal ruling in Abuja in which Governor Darius Ishaku of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was sacked and his opponent Aisha Alhassan of the All Progressives Congress (APC) reinstalled as winner of the April 11 governorship election in Taraba.

    The Taraba Volunteer Group (TVG) said the tribunal sitting in Abuja, headed by Justice Musa Abubakar, predicated its decision on the sole ground that Ishaku was not validly nominated and was not sponsored by his party (PDP) and  all the votes cast for him were wasted votes.

    The group said, ironically, the decision was arrived at by the tribunal despite the fact that Alhassan, now minister for Women Affairs, by her own pleadings, expressly stated that Governor Darius Ishaku is a member of PDP and was indeed sponsored by PDP to contest the gubernatorial poll on Aprill 11 and 25.

    “In Law, this is an admission, and Aisha Alhassan is stopped from denying or withdrawing from this express admission of fact.

    “Parties are bound by their pleadings. This is because in law, you cannot approbate and reprobate,” the group’s Coordinator Joseph Terence said.

    The Volunteer groups’s Public Relations Officer Moveino Dauda added that, “by Alhassan’s admission in her petition, it is a conclusive prove that establishes the fact that Governor Ishaku met the requirement of Section 177 of the Constitution, that he is a member of a political party and was sponsored by that party.”

    Terence and Dauda, all lawyers, said, inline with the pleadings of the APC candidate, the tribunal ought to have dismissed the petition on the ground of incompetence, after she had proceeded to aver facts inconsistently with her grounds of petition.

    “The ground of her petition which challenged the nomination and sponsorship of Darius Ishaku is deemed abandonment in line with her pleadings to the contrary, as was held by the appellate court in Amusun vs Daniel.

    “The judgment of the election tribunal is to say the least an attempt to rob the good people of Taraba state of the mandate given to Ishaku.

    “This judgment negates the very tenets and principles of democracy which is government by the majority of the people.

    “The implication of the tribunal’s judgment is foisting the government of the minority on the majority. This is an antithesis to the doctrine of democracy.

    “The tribunal rightly found that Ishaku won the election, as Alhassan could not prove over voting interalia.”

    Terence said the Supreme Court in Okagdigbo vs Chidi and Ugwu vs PDP decided this year that issues of party primaries are pre-election matters that should be handled by the Federal High Court or State High Court as contained in Section 87 of the Electoral Act.

    Calling on Taraba People to remain calm, he added that it is curious and worrisome that the tribunal went ahead to grant Alhassan a relief of nullification of election which she never sought for in her reliefs.

    “In law, it is very elementary that a court is not a Father Christmas; a court cannot give you what you never asked. A relief of nullification cannot be granted as a consequential relief; it must be specifically sought for.

    “The judgment is to say the least a clear affront on the democratic process. We therefore ask the Court of Appeal to reverse it, and we are confident the appellate court will do justice.”