That legal battle in Sokoto
Both the Election Tribunal and Court of Appeal, Kaduna, received petition over alleged case of dual sponsorship of one of the gubernatorial candidates. That on a certified copy of Form EC 4B (IV) of INEC filled by the affected candidate on February 12, 2007, two (2) parties – ANPP and PDP – were entered in […]
Both the Election Tribunal and Court of Appeal, Kaduna, received petition over alleged case of dual sponsorship of one of the gubernatorial candidates. That on a certified copy of Form EC 4B (IV) of INEC filled by the affected candidate on February 12, 2007, two (2) parties – ANPP and PDP – were entered in the column reserved for the name of the sponsoring political party.
On April 11, 2008, the Court of Appeal, Kaduna gave a verdict on the Sokoto election case in which the court was satisfied that Governor Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko’s nomination by PDP was a clear breach of Section 187 (1) of the 1999 constitution and Section 38 of the 2006 Electoral Act and the nomination of Barrister Muktar Shagari as deputy gubernorship candidate was not in conformity with the 2006 Electoral Act. Thus, it was established that Wamakko had enjoyed dual party sponsorship while Shagari backdated the Oath of Contest document.
When the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and PDP insisted that Wamakko could contest the re-run election based on the Appeal Court order, the DPP simply instituted a case at the Federal High Court, Abuja demanding the interpretation of the earlier court of the Appeal verdict on the matter and to issue an order disqualifying Wamakko and the PDP from contesting the re-run election which INEC had scheduled for May 24, 2008. the DPP participated in the re-run to enable it get the grounds upon which it could challenge the participation of Wamakko and the PDP in the exercise.
On July 17, 2008, the Federal High Court rejected the DPP case for lack of jurisdiction and referred the matter to the superior court for consideration. Consequently, the DPP legal team moved to the Appeal Court Abuja, where verdict on the matter is still being awaited.
Their argument is not difficult to appreciate as the April 14, 2007 election was annulled due to irregularities in the form of multiple nominations, lack of proper sponsorship and lack of valid running mate with regard to the purported winner of the election, Wamakko of the PDP. Therefore, a fresh nomination ought to have been made to INEC, if the PDP had actually wanted him to be its candidate. This is by virtue of section 32 (7). The court also quoted section 177 and 187 (1) of the 1999 constitution which they said apply to general election such as the April 14, 2007 election, which was annulled by the Court of Appeal and ordered a fresh election within 90 days. The new election ordered was in the opinion of the dissenting judgment.
In arriving at the decision, Okonkwo and Ahamaije (JJ) listed some authorities some of which are Sections 32 (1) – 32 (7) of the 2006 Electoral Act to buttress their argument. Section 32, which contains the main reason, reads as follows: Section (1) every political party should, not later than 120 days before the date appointed to a general election under the provisions of this Act, submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms, the list of candidates the party propose to sponsor at the elections.
Section (2) says that the list shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by each candidate at the High Court of a state, indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office. Section (3) says that the Commission shall, within 7 days of the receipt of the personal particulars of the candidate, publish same in the constituency where the candidate intends to contest the election and section (4) says that any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit is false, may file a suit at the High Court of a State or the Federal High Court against such a person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.
Section (5) says that if the court determines that any of the information in the affidavit is false, the court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting; section (6) says that a political party which presents to the Commission, the name of a candidate who does not meet the qualifications stipulated in this section, commits an offence and is liable to conviction to a maximum fine of N500, 000 and section (7) says that every political party shall, not later than 14 days before the date appointed for a by-election by the commission, submit the list of candidates from the party for the by-election.
After a cursory look at the above section, the dissenting judges in their decision believe that Section 32 (1) applied only to a general election such as was held on April 14, 2007, but section 32 (7) applies to the case of by-election or special election, that is, where an election was cancelled and a new one held. Also, according to them section 32 (7) as opposed to section 32 (1) provides or affords the 1st respondent and the political party sponsoring him, very ample opportunity of remedying or rectifying whatever errors were found by the Court of Appeal in the nomination of 1st respondent (Aliyu Wamakko) for the April 14, 2007 election and to correct same in the 24th May 2008, it is this opportunity which he did not take that made all votes cast for him null and void, because they were scored in favour of a party which had not actually sponsored any validly nominated candidate; hence decided that the petitioner’s petition succeeds.
Consequently, the judges made the following orders: One, the 1st respondent not being validly nominated as at May 24, 2008, was not qualified to contest the governorship election for Sokoto state held on May 24, 2008. Two, the 562,395 votes recorded for the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent and its agents at the said election are void and wasted. Three, the 1st petitioner scored majority of lawful votes at the governorship election having scored 124,046 votes and also scored not less than one quarter of the lawful votes cast in at least two thirds of the Local Government Areas of Sokoto state.
Four, the 1st petitioner is entitled to be returned by the 3rd and 4th respondents as having been duly elected Governor of Sokoto state in the governorship election held on 24th May 2008. Five, the 1st petitioner shall forthwith, be sworn in as Governor of Sokoto state and finally there shall be cost of N10, 000 for the petitioners.
Dissatisfied with the decision in the majority judgement, the petitioner went on appeal to the Court of Appeal for redress. While the case was lodged at the Court of Appeal Kaduna, it was thereafter moved to Sokoto where a Court of Appeal, was recently established to cater for judicial cases from Sokoto, Zamfara and Kebbi states. Interestingly, the case was entertained on January 18, 2010 and the judgement date would be determined by the court, to be communicated to parties.
Jabo Esq, wrote from PMB 1474, Abdullahi Kure Road, Sokoto