Plateau 2023: Justice Abdulaziz Waziri on the Scale

By Steve Daniel  

Appellate Court Justice Abdulaziz Waziri possibly exited charted territory when he recently voiced certain positions regarding the nullification of all People’s Democratic Party (PDP) elected candidates in Plateau State in the 2023 polls. This was reported by Sahara Reporters and other national news media. But more importantly, it spawned concerns about judicial decorum, legal interpretation and procedural fairness.
I will enlist a seven-part summarized position to ventilate why Justice Waziri’s curious voyage is inherently flawed and subsequently raise pertinent posers. From a jurisprudential perspective, Justice Waziri’s decision to publicly discuss ongoing cases violates judicial standards outlined in the code of conduct for judicial officers. Public confidence in the judiciary requires judges to avoid impropriety and refrain from discussing live issues.
Specific legal precedents were seemingly, willfully thrown to the dogs against the backdrop of public discussion of ongoing cases by Justice Waziri. His decision to publicly discuss ongoing cases violates codified judicial decorum. Public confidence in the judiciary requires judges to avoid impropriety, and refrain from discussing live issues.

Worse, the contradictions and legal misinterpretations associated with the judgments in Plateau State under reference not unexpectedly met with widespread public criticism and have raised legitimate concerns. Justice Waziri claims the Plateau State PDP case is not a pre-election matter, contradicting legal precedents like Uduma v. Arumsi (2012) and Kente v. Bwacha (2023), which establish that nomination and sponsorship issues are pre-election matters.
The Court of Appeal’s selective application of pre-election jurisdiction in the Plateau State PDP case raises concerns about impartiality raises questions about selective jurisdiction and partiality.  Justice Waziri’s emphasis on alleged disobedience of a court order and lack of party structures as grounds for disqualification overlook the Supreme Court’s position in Kente v. Bwacha (2023), which emphasizes that internal party matters are outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Contrary to Justice Waziri’s claims of PDP’s non-compliance with Justice Gang’s Court order, evidence exists that the PDP complied with the Plateau State High Court’s order for a repeat congress. The order in PLD/J304/2020 was complied with, and the repeat congress took place on 25 September, 2023, and was monitored by the INEC.

However, the court could not have concluded that PDP did not comply with the judgment of 2020 delivered by Justice Gang without rubbishing the repeated congress, which the Court eventually tagged as not a full compliance, but partial compliance with the judgment of Justice Gang. In doing so, the Court (sitting at election Tribunal) found itself venturing into the propriety/validity or otherwise of the repeated congress.
Cut to the bone, the issue now is not that of lack of compliance with the judgment of Justice Gang, but that in complying with the judgment, certain things were not done properly. For instance, does the Court, sitting as a Tribunal, have the jurisdiction to look into the propriety/validity or otherwise of the repeated congress, including how it was done?

Only a regular Court, as opposed to Election Tribunal, has the jurisdiction to entertain the issue of validity or otherwise of a party’s congress. Under section 285 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of an Election Tribunal is very restricted. Like Mount Gibraltar, it cannot be expanded.
Only aspirants in the repeated congress, who are aggrieved can approach the Federal High Court with complaint about the propriety/validity or otherwise of the repeated congress. Did Bitrus Kaze and his group challenge the outcome of the repeated congress in any court of law? The answer is NO!
Significantly, the Federal High Court in SUIT NO: FHC/J/CS/64/2022 confirmed PDP’s compliance with the said Court order and was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Augustine Timkuk’s suit challenging the legality of the leadership of the party and elected ad-hoc delegates that conducted party primary election in the state.

These judgments, including the INEC report, were tendered before the trial Tribunal in Jos which affirmed the election of Governor Caleb Manasseh Mutfwang and other PDP candidates who stood for the 2023 elections. But the question begging for answer is that did Justice Waziri look at the INEC report and the Federal High Court judgment including the Court of Appeal ruling that show that the Plateau PDP has valid structure during the Judgements delivered by its panel at the Court of Appeal in Abuja?
If these documents were before the panel, is it the APC that will determine how PDP conducted its party primaries when the Supreme Court had ruled in other cases that it is an internal affair of the party?
Apparently, the appellate court disregarded judgments and relevant constitutional provisions. Its refusal to consider judgments like CA/J/300/2022 and UDUMA v. ARUNSI raises questions about objectivity. Additionally, disregarding constitutional provisions like sections 285(1) & (2) limiting the tribunal’s mandate to election conduct, raises procedural concerns. Justice Waziri had also alluded to the fact that PDP appealed the State High Court judgments that ordered for the repeat congress.

This was a misrepresentation of facts and the records are there for references. PDP only challenged the exclusion of the party from participating in the 2021 Local Government Elections conducted by the Plateau State Independent Electoral Commission (PLASIEC) on account of a letter written by one Bitrus Kaze and NOT on repeat congress!
It is interesting to note that clarification has been made on the matter by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, while declaring open the 39th Annual Federal High Court Judges’ Conference and the Court’s 50th Anniversary Lectures in Abuja. He said there that the Federal High Court has the largest courts in Nigeria and it is the best Courts of trial.

Hear him: “The jurisdiction of the court has kept being expanded. It is the only court that has originating jurisdiction on electoral matters.” This assertion implies that it is only the Federal High Court that has the jurisdiction to listen to pre-election matters with regards to internal affairs of political parties.
Against the forgoing background, certain germane posers arise. Why has Justice Waziri not bothered to explain why the Appeal Court chose to appoint a ‘dedicated’ Panel ONLY for Plateau cases, as opposed to what obtained for other states? Why is he particularly interested in explaining what he did in Plateau? What is his special interest in the Plateau scenario?
Is Justice Waziri afraid that the Supreme Court Justices will insist on looking at the issues fairly and is out to avoid that, hence the bizarre desperation to explain away what he did?

The posers are actually many but need not be exhausted here. Clearly, Justice Waziri’s remarks speak volumes about the Court of Appeal’s judgments regarding the Plateau State PDP cases. His remarks raise serious concerns about legal interpretations, procedural fairness, potential and possible biases. These concerns warrant a comprehensive review by the National Judicial Council, NJC.
At a period when Nigeria is uncertain about its values, its leadership and its safety, the judiciary certainly looms large as the last safeguard of society’s civilized survival. Ensuring the integrity of the judicial process is therefore crucial for maintaining public trust in our legal system.
•Steve Daniel, a Human Rights Activist, writes from Jos