It appears that the Taraba State Governorship
Election Tribunal judgment may set off legal
fireworks that would not be forgotten in a hurry
going by the points of law raised by Taraba State
Governor Darius Ishaku in his notice of appeal at the
Court of Appeal, Abuja Division.

An interesting dimension to watch out for would be
the interpretation of the Court of Appeal to section
140(1) & (2) of the Electoral Act (as amended), which
stated that where an election is nullified on the
grounds of irregularity or non-compliance or non-
qualification a fresh election should be ordered.
Also a worrisome question waiting to be answered is
whether the Tribunal went beyond its brief by
declaring the person with the second highest votes as
elected when it found that the person who obtained
the highest votes at the election was not qualified to
contest the election?
In whatever manner this question and others are
answered, the politics of Nigeria nay the judicial
process will not remain the same again as the issues
raised by the governor are too weighty to be ignored.
Notwithstanding, in his notice of appeal against the
judgment filed at the Court of Appeal, Gov Ishaku
averred that the verdict of the Taraba State
Governorship Election Tribunal nullifying his election
was a miscarriage of justice.
In the appeal filed at the Court of Appeal, Abuja
division, Gov Ishaku sought two reliefs, namely: That
the Court of Appeal allow the appeal, and set aside
the judgment of the Tribunal delivered on November
7, 2015.
He further sought the Court of Appeal to set aside all
consequential orders made by the Tribunal and to
strike out or dismiss the petition of Senator Aisha
Alhassan, the governorship candidate of the All
Progressive Congress, and the APC.
Named as respondents in the appeal includes
Alhassan, the APC; his own party, the Peoples
Democratic Party, PDP; and the Independent National
Commission, INEC as respondents.


Gov Ishaku laid the foundation for his appeal in his
third point, sub-titled error in law. In this point,
which thrust deep and sharp at the Tribunal’s verdict,
he described as error of law, the ruling that he was
not qualified to contest for the office of governor of
Taraba State having not being sponsored by a
political party. He maintained that in his preliminary
objection to Alhassan’s petition at the Tribunal, he
had argued that he (Ishaku) was indeed sponsored by
PDP and that in the event of a fresh election being
ordered, should be the candidate of the PDP.

Building up his premise, Gov Ishaku submitted that
since Alhassan offered no response to his
preliminary objection, that point in her petition ought
to have been struck out by the Tribunal.

According to the notice of appeal: ‘’No evidence was
required on the issue, but without waiting for any
evidence, and without giving considerations to his
submissions on the issue, the Tribunal resolved the
issue in favour of Alhassan and the APC.
‘’Having resolved the issue in favour of the
Petitioners, the Tribunal did not state the process of
reasoning by which it came to the conclusion that the
facts pleaded were not inconsistent with the ground
that he was not sponsored by the PDP.
‘

’The decision of the Tribunal resolving the issue in
favour of Alhassan and APC did not take into account
his, (Ishaku’s) preliminary objections.
‘’The failure to consider his (Ishaku’s) submissions on
the issue constituted a failure of duty or of
jurisdiction occasioning a miscarriage of justice’’ Gov
Ishaku argued in his notice of appeal.

Further querying the competence of the Tribunal’s
judgment, Ishaku, cited Obumneke V Sylvester & 179
Ors. (2010) ALL FWLR (PT 502) 1152, which held that a
Commissioner of Oaths must append his signature to
an oath or deposition to verify its authenticity and
legitimacy. This reaction was in response to the
Tribunal’s ruling that petitions not accompanied by
sworn witness statements of depositions were
acceptable or mere technicality once the necessary
fees had been paid.


Ishaku disputed this ruling, arguing that the Tribunal
erred by accepting Alhassan’s petition even when it
was not accompanied by sworn witness statements
or depositions. He elaborated further with points as
follows: i. All the witness statements were not sworn
to as no oath was administered; ii. The so-called
witness statements did not bear the name or
signature of the person purporting to administer the
oaths; iii. Under paragraph 4(6) of the First Schedule
of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), a Petition
should not be accepted for filing by the secretary of
the Tribunal unless accompanied by witness
statements duly sworn; iv. The petitioners themselves
acknowledged that the witness statements were
defective and indicated in the pre-hearing
information sheet their intention to amend same.
‘
’Failure to swear to the witness statement is not a
mere technicality’’ he affirmed.
Other contentious issues raised by Gov. Ishaku in his
appeal includes the argument that the Tribunal erred
by entertaining Alhassan’s petition that he (Ishaku)
was not qualified to contest the election on the
ground that he was not sponsored by a political
party, even when she failed to seek substantive relief
for the Tribunal to order a fresh election.

‘’A ground of a petition to be competent and
justiciable must seek a corresponding substantive
relief. The failure to seek an order for a fresh election
rendered the ground academic or hypothetical and
therefore incompetent’’ he stressed.
Further picking holes in the judgment, Gov Ishaku
tackled the Tribunal judges for not being mindful of
the inconsistencies in the reliefs sought by Alhassan:
“In one breath she sought for a declaration that she
scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the
election, and in another breath argued that the same
election was marred by corrupt practices and non-
compliance to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).”
He noted.

Not done with tackling the Tribunal for erring in law,
Gov Ishaku cited section 140(1) & (2) of the Electoral
Act (as amended), arguing that the appropriate order
to make where an election is nullified on the grounds
of irregularity or non-compliance or non-qualification
is to order fresh election. He stressed that the power
of the Tribunal when it is found that the person who
obtained the highest votes at the election was not
qualified to contest the election is to order a fresh
election. ‘’The Tribunal is forbidden from declaring
the person with the second highest votes or any
other person as elected, as acknowledged by the
Tribunal itself’’ he stated
It would be recalled that the judgment of the Taraba
State Governorship Election Tribunal on November 7,
2015 nullified the election of Governor Ishaku, and
since then, like the signs of an impending storm,
political storm has been gradually building up.
The Tribunal in its ruling maintained that Gov Ishaku
did not emerge as PDP candidate via valid primaries
as required by the Electoral Act, 2010 and the 1999
Constitution.
The spontaneous reaction to that judgment was the
eruption of violence in some parts of the already
volatile State. No fewer than eight people were killed
and more than 30 others were injured in the crisis
which erupted in Wukari, Taraba State as a result of
the verdict.

Addressing the issues arising from the judgment
poignantly from partisan and judicial points of view,
Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose maintained that
Taraba people obviously voted for the PDP, and not
for the APC which even after the re-run of April 25,
still failed to garner the constitutionally required two-
thirds majority. He insisted it would be a negation of
the will of the majority to award the governorship to
the party voted for by the minority.


However, determined to hold on to the popular
mandate given him by Taraba people, Gov Ishaku has
since identified eleven (11) grounds or eleven errors
of law in the Tribunal decision which he wants the
Court of Appeal to adjudicate on, and finally throw
out the Tribunal’s judgment which nullified his
election. Tarabans and Nigerians are waiting with
bated breath.