One tribunal, two verdicts
This was also how Almakura’s supporters went to town rubbishing the impressive and indelible contributions of the Doma Administration to the development of Nasarawa State. Today Governor Almakura has had to openly admit that the Aliyu Akwe Doma had in fact done so much to lay a solid foundation for the development of the state, […]
This was also how Almakura’s supporters went to town rubbishing the impressive and indelible contributions of the Doma Administration to the development of Nasarawa State. Today Governor Almakura has had to openly admit that the Aliyu Akwe Doma had in fact done so much to lay a solid foundation for the development of the state, that his CPC administration would pocket its own agenda and devote its time and resources to build on the Doma foundation. And Aliyu Doma laughed last!
The CPC Nasarawa supporters, encouraged by the governor’s aides, erupted in raucous celebration in the court on November 12 in Lafia and virtually drowned the judge’s voice. They were vividly prepared for that verdict as they turned the court room into a carnival with singing and dancing and posters flying about. Little wonder that they never heard the dissenting verdict by one of the three judges gave victory to Aliyu Doma and denied the CPC/Almakura case of a unanimous verdict. Even a unanimous election tribunal verdict is shaky until it scales the crucial appeal hurdle; a split-decision at tribunal stage as in this case is clearly in greater jeopardy, and not a matter for frenzied jubilation. Justice Akinwale David Oladimeji not only dissociated himself from the lead judgment prepared by his chairman and other colleague but proceeded to dismember it with patently superior arguments rooted more robustly in law, according to legal luminaries.
The lead judgment hinged its verdict upholding the Almakura victory, ignoring the evidence brought by Doma’s legal team and witnesses, precisely primed not to affect the slim difference in votes that props Almakura in office. Ludicrous legal lampoons were deployed to play down the fiasco involving the besieged INEC Director of Operations (PW 40) and the scandalous saga of eleven certified true copies of INEC results sheets forms EC 8A certified by him and tendered through him by Doma’s lawyers to challenge their cancellation from the total results for the election. This judge faulted the INEC man’s later attempts to disown the EC8A forms. The other two judges instead condoned this by declaring that the genuineness and validity relates to the certification and not to the “truth” of its contents. Yet there was consensus that forms EC8A cannot be issued after the elections have been voided due to malpractices as claimed by Almakura who had all along maintained that the elections were free and fair and in compliance with election regulations. .
Another legal trapezium swung into the lead judgment relates to the issue of distinguishing between criminal allegations requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt and other allegations requiring only a preponderance of evidence before the tribunal. The lead judgment tilted in favour Almakura by declaring that the allegations made by Doma’s team are entirely criminal allegations requiring stronger evidence not brought before the tribunal. The crux of the matter is that by so doing a whopping 65,058 disputed Almakura votes were sanctified and accepted.
By contrast, the dissenting judge focused on the incongruities in several INEC contentions on the elections and highlighted other actions and inactions as unbecoming of an impartial arbiter. On the issue of certified true copies of forms EC8A, this judge declared it “shameful and not acceptable” that INEC that is supposed to be neutral is engaged in some “hide and seek game” by not tendering the originals in contrast to certified true copies or producing evidence of cancellation yet making strenuous efforts to disown them and back Almakura’s challenge of the admissibility of the forms EC8A. He also felt INEC “was certainly covering up something” by having two of its officials separately certifying same documents for each of the two parties. He observed that there were wide discrepancies between total ballots tendered by the INEC Director and the number of ballots issued as recorded in forms EC8A and wondered how unused ballot papers found their way into ballot boxes tendered by Almakura which should contain only used ballots.
The INEC counsel was also pilloried for refusing to deny allegations made by Almakura against elections conducted by his clients while putting up a defense against similar allegations made by Doma. He also held that some aspects of the allegations of non-compliance made by the petitioner don’t have criminal tone, citing examples such as unexplained mathematical discrepancies in INEC’s submitted records of used, unused and issued ballot papers in several results awarded to Almakura. It was easy to see why this judge could not go along with colleagues in upholding Almakura’s victory.
The Appeal Court will definitely be better equipped with the two sides of the case to reach a credible decision than the premature, one-handed clapping of CPC supporters.
Akwati wrote in from Akwanga