By Ibrahim Hassan-Wuyo 

The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has commenced sitting in Kaduna with a  3-man panel handling the petitions filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its gubernatorial candidate, Rt. Hon. Mohammed Isa Ashiru,  against the All Progressive Congress (APC), candidate, Senator Uba Sani and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Other members of the panel were Justice D.A Damulak and Justice N. Nonye.

 Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Victor O. Oviawe  said at the commencement on Thursday that the Tribunal would  uphold and work within the ambit of the provisions of the constitution.

“The Tribunal will be just, fair and do the right thing in the interest of the public,” he said.

According to him, 5  petitions were before the Tribunal. 

He therefore, sought the cooperation of the Bar  to enable the court to deliver in time and in line with the provision of the Electoral Act.

 Chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Kaduna branch, Tajudeen Muhammed, assured the panel of the NBA’s support.

“The Bar will give utmost cooperation to the Bench throughout the process of the case,” he said.

A former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Bayo Ojo (SAN)led the APC and Uba Sani team of senior lawyers  

In an interview , Ojo said, “today, we are here for the inaugural sitting of the tribunal as you heard the Chairman said and my response to that; We have pledged our cooperation to ensure that, the sittings go very well, while we are going to defend our client to the best of our ability”.

The PDP team of senior lawyers was represented by Prof. Francis Kwede, the Dean, faculty of law, university of Jos on behalf of the lead Counsel, Samuel Atung (SAN).

Prof  Kwede said in an interview that “from what transpired it is an inaugural sitting of the tribunal , I assure you that there will be justice, as members of the Bar we want to assure tribunal that justice will be served in this matter. In this matter I have confidence that at the end members of the public will see that justice has been done, at the end of the day justice will be done “

The Chairman of PDP in Kaduna State, Mr  Hassan Hyet said, “this inaugural sitting is a long awaited day. We are happy that the Chairman of the Tribunal has promised to be fair and do justice to whoever justice is due.Our prayer is that, at the end of the day, the Tribunal will do justice to all the parties and the people of Kaduna State “

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had  in its reply to the petition marked KPT/KD/GOV/4/2023 and filed on 6 May 2023, averred that the incumbent governor and candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress, Uba Sani, won the election fair and square and lawfully returned as the victor.

 INEC had invited the  Tribunal to note a major constitutional error in the petition brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the outcome of the 18 March 2023 poll.

The reply of the Commission contained both in its preliminary objection to the petition brought by PDP and its candidate, Mohammed Ashiru , and point-by-point response to all the allegations raised by the petitioners, against the conduct of the poll and its final outcome.

The leader of  team of Senior Advocates, Abdullahi Aliyu, SAN, also listed 29 documents which the Commission would rely on, if the petition isn’t dismissed at the preliminary stage and gets to full trial.

In its preliminary objection highlighting the 47-page reply, the electoral body claimed that the constitutional error being signalled, has rendered the judicial challenge mounted by the petitioners, incompetent, and only fit, for dismissal.

INEC stated in its preliminary objection that 

“results of polling units being disputed by the petitioners, were also analysed in the reply of the electoral body, which also indicated that it would be calling witnesses from its Election Operations and ICT Departments, to prove the integrity of the poll and the votes scored by each of the participating  candidates .”

How constitutional error rendered PDP’s petition against Uba Sani useless–INEC.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has invited the Kaduna State Governorship Election Tribunal to note a major constitutional error in the petition brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the outcome of the 18 March 2023 poll.

It also insisted in its reply to the petition marked KPT/KD/GOV/4/2023 and filed on 6 May 2023, that incumbent governor and candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress, Uba Sani, won the election fair and square and lawfully returned as the victor.

The reply of the Commission contained both its preliminary objection to the petition brought by PDP and its candidate, Mohammed Ashiru , and point-by-point response to all the allegations raised by the petitioners, against the conduct of the poll and its final outcome.

Results of polling units being disputed by the petitioners, were also analysed in the reply of the electoral body, which also indicated that it would be calling witnesses from its Election Operations and ICT Departments, to prove the integrity of the poll and the votes scored by each of the participating candidates.

Leading a team of Senior Advocates, Abdullahi Aliyu, SAN, also listed 29 documents which the Commission would rely on, if the petition isn’t dismissed at the preliminary stage and gets to full trial.

In its preliminary objection highlighting the 47-page reply, the electoral body claimed that the constitutional error being signalled, has rendered the judicial challenge mounted by the petitioners, incompetent, and only fit, for dismissal.

Ashiru and PDP listed INEC, the governor and his party; the All Progressives Congress (APC), as respondents.

Putting the Tribunal on notice, INEC said it, “shall, before or at the hearing of this petition, challenge, by way of preliminary objection, the competence of this petition and shall urge this Tribunal to strike out or dismiss same.”

Delving into the constitutional error committed by the petitioners, INEC noted “A ground in an election petition contending that “the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election” is cognisable only where 2 candidates contest in a run-off under Section 179 (4) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999.

“By the table drawn in paragraph 7 of the petitioners’ petition, there were 14 candidates that contested the Governorship election conducted by the 1st Respondent (INEC) in Kaduna State on the 18th day of March 2023.

“Section 134 (c) of the Electoral Act, 2022 cannot be relied upon as a competent ground in this petition where the 2nd Respondent (Uba Sani) was declared as the winner under Section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999, which requires the winner to only score the highest number of votes cast at the election.

“A competent ground in a petition under Section 134 (c) must be couched as “the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

“The petitioners in Ground 1 of the petition couched their ground as “the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election”.

“The petitioners have expanded the provision of Section 134 (c) of the Electoral Act, 2022. No facts were pleaded distinctly to support Ground 1 in the petition. Ground 1 is incompetent” the commission averred.

The Commission further claimed that, “The petitioners’ Ground 1, to the effect that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Sani and APC), were not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election pursuant to Section 134(1)(c) of the Electoral Act, 2022, is bereft of supporting facts in the entire petition, hence, deemed abandoned.

“The petitioners now snuffed those distinct grounds under different provisions of enabling law on different facts, thereby rendered the grounds and the supporting facts as set out in paragraphs 12-42 of the petition, incompetent and liable to be struck out.

“The striking out of those paragraphs, which form the material pleadings in the petition, renders the petition, hollow. Therefore, the petition, as presently constituted as narrated above, does not confer any jurisdiction on this honourable Tribunal, to entertain the same” the Commission reasoned.”