17th November, 2023
Governor Bala Mohammed has again floored the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate Sadique Abubakar in court.
Following the tribunal judgment upholding Mohammed’s victory, the Appeal Court in Abuja, on Friday, also affirmed his victory in the March 18 governorship election.
On plea number one, APC’s Sadiq pleaded that the election be nullified because the forms and booklets used in the election were not properly filled.
However, the Appeal court ruled that the appellant failed to prove this allegation with the needed evidence.
The court also ruled that the appellant failed to state the polling units involved in the said allegations and that he was unable to state what was missing in the forms. It further held that the appellant was unable to prove how the said improperly filled forms affected the results of the election.
The court held that the witnesses called by the appellant were unable to prove that they understood what the forms looked like, while commending the tribunal for doing a thorough job by scrutinizing the evidence before it.
On the plea that there was massive non-compliance with the electoral laws, the court ruled that the appellant again could not prove this, as some of the witnesses who testified did not vote on election day and those who voted only spoke based on what they saw in their polling units alone.
On the issue of the alleged unprofessional conduct of INEC officials, the court held the same views as the tribunal, saying it was never part of the plea by the appellant at the lower court and that it was not pleaded and could not be argued.
The plea was ruled in favour of the first respondent, Mohammed.
On the plea about fraudulent cancellations, mutilations and alterations to favour the PDP candidate, the appeal court noted that, if proven, falsification of results is a criminal matter that could lead to the cancellation of election results.
However, according to the court, the appellant had the burden to prove this and had to bring the genuine one, if he argued the one tendered by INEC was falsified.
The court noted that the appellant, unfortunately, could not prove this. The court also said the least the appellant could have done was present a genuine result along with the said falsified one.