Yobe North ticket: Lawan’s long road to victory

The battle between Senate President Ahmad Lawan and Bashir Machina for the Yobe North Senatorial ticket of the All Progressives Congress (APC) ended last Monday with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, affirming the former as the rightful candidate.   The apex court sacked Machina, who was earlier recognised by the Federal High Court in Damaturu and the […]

The battle between Senate President Ahmad Lawan and Bashir Machina for the Yobe North Senatorial ticket of the All Progressives Congress (APC) ended last Monday with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, affirming the former as the rightful candidate.  

The apex court sacked Machina, who was earlier recognised by the Federal High Court in Damaturu and the Court of Appeal in Abuja. 

Lawan had lost the APC presidential ticket to former Lagos State governor, Bola Ahmed Tinubu in a presidential primary held in June 2022, after which he sought to grab the senatorial ticket from Machina, who had won the earlier senatorial primary held in Yobe.  

Although the Senate President did not take part in the senatorial primary, the party had sent his name to INEC as the candidate, claiming that he won a fresh primary held June 9, 2022, a day after the party’s presidential primary in Abuja. The electoral body refused to acknowledge him. 

Atiku in Yobe, pledges to restore peace, open borders

Turkey earthquake: Young girl rescued after 178 hours under rubble

Machina refused pressure to step down for Lawan and headed for the court to seek justice. 

Both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal had in 2022 dismissed APC’s case challenging Machina’s candidacy because the primary election that was conducted by the party on June 9 was invalid, as it was not monitored by INEC, and as such constituted a gross violation of the Electoral Act, 2022. 

However, the Supreme Court overturned the judgments of the lower courts.  

The apex court’s lead judgment by Justice Chima Centus Nweze faulted the procedure for the commitment of Machina’s suit at the Federal High Court in Damaturu, which was by way of originating summons rather than by a writ of summons having raised some contentious issues that require evidence. 

However, in a dissenting judgment, Justices Adamu Jauro and Emmanuel Agim held that Lawan, having not participated in the primary held on May 28, as he withdrew voluntarily to participate in the presidential primary held on June 8, 2022, had no right to challenge the outcome in court. 

The dissenting justices held that the party’s conduct of a fresh primary on June 9, 2022, which produced Lawan, was in breach of Section 84 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 as the APC never cancelled the May 28 primary before organising another. 

The minority decision, therefore, deemed the conduct of the second primary held on June 9 as illegal and unlawful while the APC appeal lacked merit. 

Senate President makes U-turn  

Lawan had, on two occasions, said he was not interested in appealing the judgments of the lower courts, raising concern in some quarters over his reaction to the apex court’s judgement.  

In his reaction to the High Court’s judgment, which upheld Machina’s candidacy, the Senate President had said: “After due consultations with my political associates, supporters, and well-wishers, I have decided not to appeal against the judgment. I accept the judgement.” 

Again, he reiterated his stance after reports emerged online that the Senate President had made a U-turn on his earlier decision.  

“For the umpteenth time, we want to emphasise that the Senate President has no intention to appeal against the court judgement. If anybody is dissatisfied and decides to challenge the verdict of the court, it has nothing to do with the Senate President. 

“The Senate President has made his position public and has since moved on. He is a man of his word,” Lawan had said in an October 2022 statement by his media aide, Ola Awoniyi. 

Despite Lawan’s double assurances not to appeal, analysts believed the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the former Niger Delta Affairs Minister, Godswill Akpabio as the rightful APC candidate for Akwa-Ibom North-West Senatorial election, must have prompted him to make a u-turn. 

Like Lawan, the former Akwa-Ibom State governor vied for APC presidential ticket but later stepped down for Tinubu shortly before voting commenced on the day of the primary. Akpabio then sought his party’s senatorial ticket, earlier held by Udom Ekpoudom, a retired deputy inspector general of police. The Akpabio-Ekpoudom battle ended in the apex court, whose judgement favoured the former governor.  

Briefing newsmen shortly after the Supreme Court judgement, Lawan insisted that he didn’t approach the Supreme Court to seek redress; his party, constituents in Yobe North and political associates did. 

He said, “The Supreme Court judgment of today on Yobe North is a victory for all APC members in Yobe State and across the country. 

“What happened was democracy at work. The lower courts gave their various judgments and then the Supreme Court gave the final judgment. 

“I want to commend the Supreme Court and the judiciary generally for delivering this kind of judgement to strengthen our democracy. 

“I didn’t, as an individual, go to the Supreme Court to seek redress. But my party did and my people, the people of Yobe North and Yobe State generally, and many political associates and well-wishers and supporters across the country who showed interest that there has to be an appeal at the Supreme Court on this matter. 

“So today, this victory is for all of us involved. I am the symbol but the victory is for our party, the APC, and democracy.” 

Machina silent 

Machina has kept sealed lips since the Supreme Court’s judgement. His campaign coordinator, Hon. Lawan Sani Inuwa Nguru said they would respond at the appropriate time. 

However, the Yobe State chapter of APC had constituted a reconciliation panel to reach out to all aggrieved parties to mend fences.  

Judgment undermines electoral law — Jibrin 

A professor of Political Science, Ibrahim Jibrin, described the apex court’s judgment as “an unfortunate decision”, saying it undermines the Electoral Act 2022. 

He said: “The Electoral Act is very categorical that if you don’t participate in the primaries organised by the party where INEC is duly informed and is present, then you cannot emerge as a candidate.  

“Everybody in this country knows that Ahmad Lawan was busy contesting for the presidency and did not participate in the senatorial primaries. Therefore, by saying he is the winner, the Supreme Court is making nonsense of the Electoral Act. 

“I feel we should be challenged to review this decision because it has a lot of implications. 

“Lawan is not the only one, there are other cases, where people didn’t participate in the primaries and the Supreme Court ruled that those who did not participate in the primaries were duly elected winners of their parties’ tickets. I think it is a very unfortunate decision.” 

It’s an unfortunate precedence — Rafsanjani 

The Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Ibrahim Musa (Rafsanjani), also described the apex court’s judgment as “unfortunate precedence”, saying the Lawan vs Machina case had left a very bitter taste in the mouth of every democratic person in Nigeria.  

He said, “In recent times, the judiciary in Nigeria has taken upon itself the powers to decide winners and losers of elections at every level in Nigeria without recourse to the very essence of democracy.  

“This trend has become very worrisome and portends a grave danger to the country’s nascent democracy if left unchecked. 

“What facts could the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the highest court of the land, have based its judgment on when it declared Ahmad Lawan the bona fide candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) when Lawan was busy contesting the presidential primary of the same party? 

“It is therefore appalling to see the Supreme Court outrightly declaring a primary election, which lacked the criteria of being a legitimate exercise under extant laws as the legitimate election of the APC. 

“At the least, one would have expected that the Supreme Court would order a fresh primary election for the Senatorial District rather than outrightly declaring someone who preferred and prioritised a different ticket to the one that has now been gifted to him. 

“The same thing has also been seen in Akwa Ibom State involving Godswill Akpabio. These are very unfortunate precedents in the country’s democracy.  

“The place of the judiciary and its role in the development of our democracy must be reviewed. The right to determine the leadership of this country must, in the true spirit of democracy, rest in the will of the people and not the judiciary.” 

Also, a constitutional lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), said he was surprised by the apex court’s judgment.  

“The facts that are in the public domain is that barely a day after the presidential primary of the APC in Abuja, Machina who had already won was said not to be the candidate of the party, but it was now the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan. 

“The question is when did APC give notice to INEC that they would be going to another primary? Did Machina himself who was already elected say he had withdrawn? You cannot have two Obas in one palace.” 

Warning to critics  

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has warned those criticising it over the pronouncement on Senator Godswill Akpabio, former Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, and Senate President Ahmad Lawan. 

The court, in a statement, by its Director of Press And Information, Dr Festus Akande, decried what it described as “unwarranted attacks on judicial officers.” 

It said, “All matters are thoroughly analysed and considered based on their merits and not the faces that appear in court or sentiments that attempt to becloud the sense of reasoning.  

“So, for anyone in his or her right frame of mind to insinuate that the justices have been bought over by some unknown and unseen persons is, to say the least, a bizarre expression of ignorance, which definitely has no place in law or even in the realm of pedestrian reasoning.”