Umar, PDP List Nine Grounds for S’Court to Void Judgment Affirming Aliyu as Sokoto Governor

Alex Enumah in Abuja 

Candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the March 18 governorship election in Sokoto State, Mallam Saidu Umar, and the PDP have listed nine grounds upon which they are asking the Supreme Court to set aside the concurrent judgments of the election petition tribunal and the Court of Appeal which affirmed the election of Ahmed Aliyu as Governor of Sokoto State.

In the appeal filed on their behalf by their team of lawyers led by Mr Sunday Ameh, SAN, the appellants claimed that “the judgment of the Court of Appeal is against the weight of evidence”, and as such should be set aside by the apex court.

A three-member panel of the appellate court had in a unanimous judgment last month held that the appellants failed to substantiate allegations of irregularities, noncompliance as well as non qualification contained in their appeal.

Justice Mbaba Bassi who delivered the lead judgment had held that the tribunal was right in expunging evidence of non-compliance and other alleged irregularities and malpractices because the evidences were presented by incompetent witnesses.

Bassi further held that the failure of the appellants to list and front-load the statement of the witnesses was fatal to their case.

Besides, the court held that even though the appellants provided documents from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC ) to prove cancellation of election in 138 polling units across the state, their failure to call witnesses from the affected polling units to speak to the documents was fatal to their case.

Justice Bassi pointed that reliance on Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 was insufficient to prove cancellation without oral evidence.

But Umar and the PDP in their appeal at the Supreme Court dated December 8 but filed December 10, argued that, “The Court of Appeal in its judgment ignored the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on the application of the provision of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022”. 

According to the appellants the Court of Appeal made a positive finding that the evidence on record before the court demonstrated that the non-compliance complained of by the appellants were manifest from the Certified True Copies of documents relied upon, adding that by the doctrine of judicial precedent, the Court of Appeal was bound without any discretion by the decision of the Supreme Court in OYETOLA V. INEC (Supra) and not recent authorities of the Court of Appeal as erroneously held at page 104 of its judgment on the same point that the Supreme Court had made positive pronouncement on. 

“The Supreme Court’s judgment in OYETOLA V. INEC ranks superior to the authorities of COLLINS VS INEC & ORS: (CA/AB)/EP/HR/IM/79/2023, delivered on 4/10/2023, and UKODHIKO VS PDP & ORS: CA/AS/EP/HR/OL/16/2023, delivered on 1/11/2023 heavily relied on by the Court of Appeal at page 104 of its Judgment”, they submitted. 

In ground eight of the appeal Umar and PDP further claimed that, “The Court of Appeal erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of Justice when it held on page 90 of the judgment that Exhibits SW68 and SW87 remained invalid having been produced by incompetent witnesses going by the position of the Supreme Court in Obi Vs INEC & Ors and Atiku Abubakar & Anor. V. INEC § 2 Ors.: SC/CV/935/2023 (Unreported). 

“Exhibits SW68 and SW87 are the Certified True Copies of INEC Summary of PVCs Collected in all the polling units in Sokoto State, which were tendered by subpoenaed witnesses from INEC, (PW29 and PW30). 

“Exhibits SW68 and SW87 are certified true copies of public documents in the custody of the 4” Respondent, duly certified by it and tendered by the maker. The only admissible form of the said Exhibits SW68 and SW87 are the originals or the certified true copies of the said documents. : 

“Exhibits SW68 and SW87, were produced by PW29 and PW30 upon subpoena Duces Tecum ad Testificandum which commanded them to appear before the Trial Tribunal to perform dual responsibilities, to wit;  tender documents and to give oral testimony”, the appellants argued. 

They therefore prayed the apex court to allow the appeal and “set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the decision/judgment of the Trial Tribunal delivered on September 30, 2023 In Petition No.: EPT/SK/GOV/01/2023”. 

Besides they prayed the apex court to determine that it Aliyu and his deputy were at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election. 

“An order directing the withdrawal of the Certificates of Return issued to the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the 4” Respondent. 

“That it may be determined that the 1st Appellant having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the Governorship Election held on March 18, 2023, be returned as duly elected Governor of Sokoto State. 

“An order mandating/directing the 4th Respondent to issue Certificates of Return to the 1st Appellant as the winner of the election conducted by the 4th Respondent on March 18, 2023, for the office of the Executive Governor of Sokoto State. 

“In alternative to Relief 5 above, an order of the Supreme Court, directing the 4th Respondent to conduct a rerun in the 138 polling units where election did not hold or was cancelled by INEC.

No date has been fixed for hearing.

Recall that Aliyu had won the election with about 49,000 votes, while total number of registered voters in the affected polling units where election was cancelled was put at over 85,000, total number of collected Permanent Voters Card (PVC) was put at over 82,000.

Based on the above the appellants had urged the appellate court to void the election of Aliyu, declare the March 18 election inconclusive and that the electoral umpire be ordered to conduct a supplementary election in the 138 polling units where election was cancelled.

They had presented INEC’s form EC40G (incident form; showing elections were cancelled due to over-voting or disruption. According to the appellate court, the form EC40G, “shows electorates were given opportunity to vote but something went wrong culminating in the cancellation of the election”.

While stating that he doesn’t think it was necessary to call any person to speak again to such documents in line with Section 137 of the Electoral Act, Justice Bassi however observed that precedence already set by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in related matters demand that the appellants lead oral evidence to support the allegation of manipulation of votes through the cancellation of election in 138 polling units.