EVENTUALLY, the Chief Justice of Nigeria wrote a letter to the President, Court of Appeal on 18/02/2010 attaching the petitions and asking for comments on the allegations made and the President of the Court of Appeal was asked to ensure that further action on the judgment is put on hold.

4.02.2 Another letter dated 19102/2010 from the Chief Justice of Nigeria to the justices who heard the appeal with the petitions attached were forwarded to the Justices for their comments and they were asked to ensure putting on hold further action on the judgments pending the determination of the allegations leveled against them.

4.02.3 In his reply to the letter dated 22/02/2010, the President, Court of Appeal raised many weighty issues. For the purpose of clarity, some relevant portions of the President; Court of Appeal’s reply are reproduced below.-

“I have read the two petitions carefully but I cannot, regrettably, find any serious allegations contained therein. I am also unable to see the urgency in the matter to warrant Your Lordship intervening in a Court proceedings, which interference respectfully is contemptuous of the Court sitting in Sokoto. Yours appears to be a deliberate attempt to frustrate the hearing. It is the practice of the National Judicial Council on whose behalf Your Lordship is purportedly acting, not to interfere in matters that are subjudice.

The appeal in Sokoto arises from an election petition of 2007. We are in 2010. We all should realize the urgency attendant upon, mutters arising from election petitions. For anyone to consider fixture of such election petition for hearing in 2010 as premature and undesirable leaves much to be desired.

I do not know what motivated my predecessor to think that a pre- election matter take precedent over election appeal. But I am firmly the view that making an order to the effect that hearing in the matter should abide the determination of another matter in the Supreme Court on the letter of one of the parties without hearing the other side, is most inappropriate.

 Principle of fair hearing

 It negates any principle of fair hearing. So, when Mr. Yahaya Mahmood in company of Senator Dahir Tambawal approached me with a request that I should maintain status quo by continuing to bury the appeal, I told them that that approach would not be in the interest of justice. That they should appear in the Court and trash out the existence of the various suits in different Courts including the Supreme Court in the open court. This will afford all the parties the chance to vent their views. I equally make it clear to them that I was not prepared to meddle in the case. on personal relationship basis. This probably incensed them .

This takes me to the lynch pin of their petition. The second visit of both Yahaya and Senator Dahiru was after the appeal was heard. It was not to persuade me to change my decision on perpetual adjournment of the appeal. When they came, I took them in as friends, unknown to me that they were enemies within. They raised the issue of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, which after finding that the Governor of Sokoto State, Alhaji Aliyu Magartakarda Wammakko was not properly nominated, it made consequential orders which included that of a re-run election, and that the candidate found to be unqualified, to participate in the re-run election.

 I agreed with them that the judgment was incongruous, but explained that they were made against the respective parties. While the order pronouncing Wammakko unqualified was in favour of the Appellant, the other one to the effect that he should participate in the re-run election was in favour of the Respondent. If there were to be a right of appeal, the parties would have to appeal against the order made against them, otherwise, the decision subsists against the party who failed to do so.

In the circumstance of this case, there is no right of appeal hence Governor Wammakko could participate in the re-run as he did, and the Appellant at the end of the day would be entitled to raise the. issue of his disqualification as a constitutional issue. I told them that one is not subsumed in the other.

The Senator apparently appreciated my explanation and thanked me for it, but requested me to persuade the Court to decide the appeal in favour of Wanmakko in the interest of peace. I told him that I would not go out of my way to order them to dismiss the appeal or; in fact will not interfere in the working of the five competent Justices on the panel, if in their opinion they found merit in it. It is my failure to grant their request that turned otherwise cordial relationship sour. It is most unfortunate.

In fact, having gone through the petitions over, happily nowhere is allegations of financial impropriety made against me or any of the respectable and honourable gentlemen who sat on the appeal unlike in Uba’s case where huge sums of money were alleged to have been given to the Justices.

Nevertheless, your predecessor in office in his wisdom, allow the judgment to be delivered. He did not rush to conclusion in the manner you are doing. I will appeal to Your Lordship to make haste gently, otherwise Your Lordship may wittingly or unwittingly bring the Judiciary into gross disrepute.

Moreover, there is no scintilla of evidence that I met any member of the Appellants. Neither is there such evidence against the Justices. All we have is that the Respondents unconstitutionally breach or invaded our right to privacy and unlawfully recorded our discussions .

The piece of evidence violated our right of privacy in the Constitution. They were also obtained without first administering caution on us. Are these admissible evidence? I thought this should have agitated the mind of Your Lordship before placing store on the evidence as the Chief Justice of Nigeria who is required to defend the Judiciary. Quo Bono.

 The question is what is the -locus standi of the Independent National Electoral Commission in this matter. The appellants are not challenging the conduct of the election. What is in issue here is that the appellants are contesting qualification or otherwise of Wammakko. It is therefore incumbent on the candidate to establish his status, it is not INEC to plunge into the fray on the side of one of the candidates whom INEC itself agree was not qualified to contest the election.

Meanwhile, I wish to remind Your Lordship that you, on 8th February, 2010 invited me to Your Lordship’s Chambers to request me to instruct the Justices to dismiss the appeal. Your Lordship told me that was what the Supreme Court did in Amechi’s case. Dahiru Musdapher JSC was there. I rejected Your Lordship’s entreaties.

Thereafter, petitions emerged in Your Lordship’s Chambers on 8th February, 2010. On 16th February, 2010, you invited me to your Chambers and gave me to read the petition written by Mr. Yahaya Mahmood.

After reading, you asked if I would not disband the panel. I told Your Lordship I would discuss it with the panel, a suggestion Your Lordship did not appreciate, and you made it clear, and asked me to just disband them and report back to you. I have not reported back to you to date. The carefully orchestrated pressure was intended to, make me falter but I thank Almighty Allah that I have not succumbed. If I had faltered you would not be there for me.

In view of all the above, I do not think that I am in a position to carry out Your Lordship’s order to stop the appeal pending the determination of the investigation of “serious allegation” made against me and the Justices in the two petitions. No responsible tribunal will consider the contents of the two documents to amount to serious indictment.

 In any case, Your Lordship in an unprecedented manner have taken over the running of the Court of Appeal. You have unilaterally made the order, which I respectfully consider unlawful to stop the judgment.

It would have caused me virtually nothing if I had surrendered to Your Lordship’s requests which constitute, in my respectful view, dangerous precedent for which I would have stood condemned before posterity. We should not allow it to happen in our time”.4.02.4 To have a complete picture, it will help if the Chief Justice of Nigeria’s response to the President, Court of Appeal’s allegations is also set out. In a sworn. affidavit dated 07/03/2011, particularlly in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit, the Chief Justice of Nigeria deposed as follows:-

 Record purposes

 “6. That all the aforementioned petitions written against me are in respect of the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal and my Date of Birth.

7. That for record purposes and setting the facts right, I hereby state as follows:-

i) That I did not at any time whatsoever interfere in any form or manner with the Sokoto State Gubernatorial- Election Petition Appeal.

ii) That at some stage, while the appeal was pending at the Court of Appeal, in my capacity as the Chairman of the National Judicial Council, I received written Petitions addressed to me pertaining the said appeal.

iii) That one of the complaints in the -petitions was that the judgment about to be delivered by the Court of Appeal in respect of the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal had leaked.

iv) That I called Honourable Justice Dahiru Musdapher, the next most senior Justice of the Supreme Court and Deputy Chairman, National Judicial Council to my Chambers and showed him the petitions and sought for his advice on how the matter could be handled.

v) That Honourable Justice Dahiru Musdapher suggested that we call the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Ayo Isa Salami to inform him of the petitions.

vi) That I therefore, called the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal by telephone to come to my Chambers.

vii) That when the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal came to my Chambers, in the presence of Hon. Justice Dahiru Musdapber, I told him I had received a complaint that the judgment to be delivered in respect of the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal had leaked.

viii) That the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal, Justice I. A. Salami, OFR, admitted that the judgment had leaked.

ix) That I showed him the petitions I had received in respect of the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal and told him that the only way to maintain the integrity of the Court was to reconstitute the panel, as that was the proper cause of action to take.

x) That I even reminded him that his predecessor in office, Honourable Justice Umaru Abdullahi, CON, had a similar problem in the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division and had to disband and re-constitute another Panel which was presided over by Hon. Justice Isa Ayo Salami, OFR, himself.