•Insists on hearing petition against Ishaku in Abuja
The Taraba State governorship election tribunal has declined a request by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to relocate to the state.
The President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bilkachuwa, empowered under the Constitution to constitute election tribunals in respect of disputed elections, set up the Taraba governorship tribunal in Abuja owing to security challenge in the state.
Tribunal Chairman, Justice Musa Abubakar, in a ruling yesterday, rejected INEC’s opposition to the tribunal’s sitting in Abuja.
He also dismissed INEC’s motion, challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction to sit in Abuja and hear a petition filed by the All governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last election, Hajia Aisa Alhassan, and her party.
Justice Abubakar held that the tribunal was validly constituted by the Court of Appeal President in line with her constitutional powers.
INEC had, in its motion, challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal President to direct the tribunal’s sitting in Abuja.
It argued that the tribunal ought to sit in the state where the election was held.
It also noted that the state’s legislative election tribunal was currently sitting in Jalingo, the state capital.
INEC urged the tribunal to relocate to the state.
The tribunal chairman upheld the argument by lawyer to the petitioners, Mahmud Magaji (SAN) to the effect that since INEC was, by its motion, was challenging the Court of Appeal President’s exercise of her constitutional power, it should go before the Federal High Court, with powers to determine constitutional issues.
The petitioners are challenging the outcome of the last governorship election in Taraba State, won by Ishaku of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Alhassan and her party are of the view that the election was marred with irregularities. They want the election voided.
Magaji’s request for the tribunal to proceed with the hearing of his clients’ petition was opposed by lawyers to the respondents – Ishaku, PDP and INEC).
While Magaji was of the view that the tribunal could hear the petition along with motions, challenging the competence of the petition, respondents’ lawyers led by former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the tribunal to act otherwise.
They contended that it was the tradition that a court or tribunal must first deal with motions challenging the competence of a petition or a suit before assuming jurisdiction over suit a suit or petition.
They argued that the tribunal must first determine whether or not the petition was competent for it to determine whether or not to exercise its jurisdiction to hear it.
Magaji, in a counter argument cited the provision of Paragraph 12(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act which, he said, made it mandatory for an election tribunal to hear any objection to the competence of a petition along with the petition.
He argued that since election petition proceedings were peculiar, the regular rules of court do not apply. He noted that time was of the essence in electoral cases.
Magaji faulted the respondents’ reliance of the provision of Paragraph 18(7)(d) where it was provided that a tribunal may decide any objection before proceeding to consided the main petition.
He noted that the tribunal had, at its inaugural sitting, cautioned parties against delay and elected to take all preliminary motions with the petition.
Justice Abubakar has adjourned to August 3 for ruling on whether or not to hear pending preliminary motions with the petition.
