Parties Fault Court Judgement on Plateau Reps, Senate Elections

Political parties under the aegis of the Conference of Allied Political Parties have faulted the Appeal Court judgment on the Plateau State National Assembly elections.

The Appeal Court had on Tuesday in Abuja upheld the tribunal’s judgment, which declared the Minister of Labour, Simon Lalong, winner of the Plateau South Senatorial election.

The Independent National Electoral Commission had declared Napoleon Bali of the Peoples Democratic Party winner with 148,844 votes, while Lalong scored 91,674 to come second in the February 25 elections.

The Election Petition Tribunal nullified Bali’s election on the grounds that the PDP did not have a proper party structure and, therefore, could not file candidates for the elections.

In a unanimous judgment read by Justice Muhammad Tukur, the tribunal said the PDP, having no structure, lacked the right to take part in the election.

The three-person panel of the Appeal Court, led by Justice Elfrieda Williams-Dawodu, held that the matter was both a pre and post-election matter, adding that the tribunal was correct to have looked at the issue.

But in a statement signed by CAPP Director of Publicity, Dr Amos Sani, the political parties described the judgment as “insensitive and a gross abuse of the judicial process”.

“The decision to declare the Minister of Labour, Simon Lalong, winner of the Plateau South Senatorial election is a travesty of justice. For the Appeal court to declare Simon Lalong a winner because the PDP didn’t have a structure is insane and a rape of democracy.

“On what basis would the APC canvass that the PDP as a party didn’t have a structure? What is the business of the APC with the structure of another party? It indicates that the justices of the Appeal Court delivered a kangaroo judgment,” the statement read.

He further stated that the actions of the court tend to set a dangerous precedence in the country.

“This is a clear case of rape of our democracy, and any well-meaning Nigerian must reject it in its ramification. There is no sense in the judgment. It read like a prepared speech that smacks of pecuniary gains.

“The Appeal Court judgment smacks of a rehashed endeavor unknown to law. It is worrisome that the justices of the Appeal Court would elect to throw caution in the wind.”