By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
The Supreme Court, yesterday, struck out an appeal filed by the governorship candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party, ANPP, in the 2007 general elections in Niger state, Mr. David Umaru, in which he asked the court to declare Governor Babangida Aliyu’s tenure illegal.

Umaru had prayed the court to look into the merits of proof of evidence he adduced before it, with a view to establishing that the election of Governor Aliyu was fraught with manifest irregularities.

He also wanted the court to set_aside the judgment of the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal which had upheld the decision of an election petition tribunal that sat over the matter in 2007 and declared Gov Aliyu winner of the said poll.

However, in a judgment which was read yesterday by Justice Mahmud Mohammed, the Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such appeal.

“Although by virtue of Section 233 of the 1999 Constitution this court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain all appeals arising from the decisions of the Court of Appeal, that jurisdiction does not include election petitions which came to that court as a result of appeal from decisions of election tribunals.

This is because as I have said earlier in this judgment the appellate jurisdiction of this court like any other court is traceable to a specific statute like the Constitution or any act of the National Assembly,” Justice Mohammed said, adding:

“A close examination of what Justice Oputa said at page 235 of the report in Adigun & Others versus the Attorney General of Oyo state No.2 [1987] 2 NWRL [Part 65] 197 at 235, relied upon by the Counsel to the appellant does not cloth this court with the jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal under Section 6[6][a] of the 1999 Constitution as claimed by the learned senior Counsel.

“The provisions of Section 6[6][a] of the 1979 Constitution dealing with inherent powers of the court explained above in Adigun’s case by counsel to the appellant are in pari_materia with Section 6[6][a] of the 1999 Constitution under which the learned senior counsel is asking this court to invoke its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal”

“In the instant case therefore, while Section 246[3] of the 1999 Constitution is quite clear that the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of the appeal is final, resulting in depriving this court of the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the same Constitution gave this court exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeal on any question as to whether any person has been validly elected into the office of President or Vice President under this Constitution or whether term of office of the President or Vice President has ceased and whether the office of the President of Vice President has become vacant under Section 233(1)(e) thereof.