31st December, 2015
Ayorinde Oluokun/Abuja
The Court of Appeal in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital has begun delivery of judgment in the appeal filed by Governor Darius Ishaku of the Peoples Democratic Party following a judgment by the Taraba Election Petition Tribunal that nullified his election.
The Taraba State Governorship Election Tribunal sitting in Abuja removed Ishaku and declared Alhaja Aisha Alhassan of All Progressives Congress (APC) winner of April 11, 2015 governorship election.
Alhassan who was appointed minister by President Muhammadu Buhari and confirmed by the senate contested her loss at the governorship election after early reports had indicated that she was in the lead and poised to win the election.
The tribunal led by Justice Abubakar ruled that Ishaku of the PDP was not qualified to contest for the April 11 governorship election because he was not properly nominated to contest on the platform of the party.
The tribunal added that the PDP failed to conduct primary for Taraba State governorship election in line with Section 177 of Nigeria’s Constitution.
Early rulings by the court in favour of Alhassan:
The court has dismissed arguments by the appellant that the Tribunal should not have accepted the statements of the witnesses because they were not properly signed. Thus, the appellant argued, the Tribunal should have struck out the petition.
The court held that the statements upon examination, were properly signed and stamped by the Secretary to the Tribunal who statutorily was the head of the registry of the Tribunal. The Appellate Court held that the petitioner fully complied with all statutory stipulations for filing of statement of witnesses and that the Tribunal was right to have accepted them.
The court also argued that it will amount to great injustice if the petitioner is held responsible for the mistake of the registry of the Tribunal.
Also, the court dismissed arguments by the appellant that the reliefs sought by the petitioner are incongruent. The appellant had argued that the petitioner cannot be claiming that the election was marred by malpractices and at the same time, asking to be declared winner of the election.
The court ruled that reliefs sought by the petitioner are congruous and consistent with one another.