Yusuff Ahmed Danladi
I am not the typical political enthusiast, but there are
certain things that cannot escape the attention of
even the most apolitical. The judgment of the Justice
Musa Danladi Abubakar-led Taraba Governorship
Election Tribunal of November 7, 2015, is one of
such. In the landmark judgment, the tribunal
declared that the duly elected governor of Taraba
State in the April 2015 election is Hajiya Aisha
Alhassan of the All Progressives Congress (APC). She
came second in the election, but the tribunal
pronounced her winner because it believes that, in
the eyes of the law, Arc. Darius Ishaku, the candidate
of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was not a
candidate. The tribunal declared that since PDP did
not hold its primary election in the state capital as
prescribed by the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), it
had no validly nominated candidate in the election.
My initial reaction was to celebrate, and that was for
two reasons. The first reason is that, at least, the so-
called minorities in Taraba State would finally
produce a governor. Since the creation of Taraba
State in 1991, Christians have always ruled the state.
Although I have nothing against Christians (I have
many Christian friends and employees and they will
testify I have never discriminated against them in my
life), I believe in equity. I am against the perpetual
domination of the governorship of certain states in
the north by Muslims the same way I am against the
perpetual domination by Christians. For that reason, I
was happy. My wish is that, in northern Nigeria,
anybody should be able to rule over any state no
matter their religion or ethnic origin.
The second reason was that Alhassan is a woman. In
southern Nigeria, which is evidently more liberal
than northern Nigeria, no woman has ever been
elected governor. The highest has been deputy
governor. I was therefore naturally sympathetic
towards Alhassan, who was going to be the first
elected female governor not just in the north but all
over Nigeria. You would appreciate this the more
when you realise that no woman has been deputy
governor in any northern state. If the region could
not produce a female deputy governor, it would take
a miracle to produce a governor. And I believed the
miracle was about to happen in Taraba through
Alhassan when the judgment was delivered. Maybe I
should also add that I have five beautiful daughters
who, I hope, would aspire to leadership in northern
Nigeria someday.
However, my enthusiasm about Alhassan was
curtailed when I read the tribunal’s judgment in full.
As a lawyer who specialises in constitutional law, I
was far from impressed. The loopholes were too
many. It appears the honourable judges were also as
enthusiastic as I am about Nigeria producing a
female governor. That is the only sense I can make
out of the judgment which ignored so many glaring
incompetent prayers by Alhassan and her party in
their petition. I would try to simplify the arguments of
the petitioners and the respondents as well as the
judgment as much as possible. I will highlight what I
believe are the shaky grounds on which the judges
arrived at their decisions.
For starters, the petitioners apparently filed their
petition out of time. Section 285(5) of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as
amended), provides thus: “An election petition shall
be filed within 21 days after the date of the
declaration of result of the election.” The election was
first conducted on April 11, 2015. It was declared
inconclusive by INEC, with a run-off election held on
April 25, 2015. Ishaku was declared winner with a
total of 369,318 votes while Alhassan came second
with 275,984 votes. The petitioners, it would appear,
deliberately omitted the dates from their petition so
as not to be caught out. In law, the competence of a
case is as important as its substance; if you violate a
procedure, you lose grip of the case.
The second area of interest to me is that while
Alhassan and APC started on a very solid ground that
Arc. Ishaku was not validly nominated, which is one
of the very reasons an election can be nullified, they
somehow undermined their own argument by failing
to make the consequential prayers as established in
law and in settled cases. Since the major ground of
APC’s petition is that Ishaku was not qualified to
contest the governorship election of Taraba State and
his nomination was therefore invalid because of
substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the
Electoral Act and by reason of corrupt practices,
Section 140(2) of the Act provides that they have to
pray for nullification of election and an order for a
fresh election. They did not. This again weakens their
petition.
The third area that also drew my attention is that
there were glaring contradictions in the petition.
Alhassan and APC started out by saying Ishaku was
the validly nominated candidate of PDP. They listed
several wards where electoral fraud was allegedly
committed. In my opinion, this is a very good line of
argument to pursue. Many elections have been
nullified by the courts since April because of
allegations of corrupt practices. However, I think that
Alhassan and APC spoilt their own case by arguing
from another side of their mouth that Ishaku was not
even a candidate in the election. It is not allowed in
law for you to approbate and reprobate. You cannot
say someone is your husband and should give you
upkeep allowance and then argue that he was not
even your husband in the first place.
I am a bit mystified that the tribunal decided to rule
in Alhassan’s favour in the face of all the facts of the
case. It specifically ruled that because Ishaku was not
validly nominated, he was never a candidate and the
person who came second should be sworn in as
governor. Alhassan’s lawyers would be saying Father
Christmas came to town too early. Going by Section
140(2) of the Electoral Act, where an election is
nullified on the ground that the person who obtained
the highest votes at the election was not qualified to
contest the questioned election, it says the tribunal
SHALL NOT declare the person with second highest
votes as elected but SHALL order a fresh election.
There is something that is not very pretty about the
conclusion of the honourable judges. The Court of
Appeal and the Supreme Court may not agree with
them.
Without doubt, Ishaku and his lawyers would feel
justice has been miscarried. If I were in their
position, I would feel the same way. While I am still
hopeful that the minorities would rule Taraba
someday, I prefer things done within the ambit of
justice and fair play. If Tarabans have voted for the
governor of their choice, any attempt to impose a
different governor on them through the judiciary has
the potential to create a serious crisis in the state. If
the majority of the people wanted Alhassan, they
would have voted for her in April. But, in this case,
they did not. I would vote for fair play any day, even if
I am not that politically active
Source: Taraba News
For More Updates
Facebook: Rhapsodi Affos Blog
Twitter: @Rhapsodi_Affos, @Affos_Blog
I am not the typical political enthusiast, but there are
certain things that cannot escape the attention of
even the most apolitical. The judgment of the Justice
Musa Danladi Abubakar-led Taraba Governorship
Election Tribunal of November 7, 2015, is one of
such. In the landmark judgment, the tribunal
declared that the duly elected governor of Taraba
State in the April 2015 election is Hajiya Aisha
Alhassan of the All Progressives Congress (APC). She
came second in the election, but the tribunal
pronounced her winner because it believes that, in
the eyes of the law, Arc. Darius Ishaku, the candidate
of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was not a
candidate. The tribunal declared that since PDP did
not hold its primary election in the state capital as
prescribed by the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), it
had no validly nominated candidate in the election.
My initial reaction was to celebrate, and that was for
two reasons. The first reason is that, at least, the so-
called minorities in Taraba State would finally
produce a governor. Since the creation of Taraba
State in 1991, Christians have always ruled the state.
Although I have nothing against Christians (I have
many Christian friends and employees and they will
testify I have never discriminated against them in my
life), I believe in equity. I am against the perpetual
domination of the governorship of certain states in
the north by Muslims the same way I am against the
perpetual domination by Christians. For that reason, I
was happy. My wish is that, in northern Nigeria,
anybody should be able to rule over any state no
matter their religion or ethnic origin.
The second reason was that Alhassan is a woman. In
southern Nigeria, which is evidently more liberal
than northern Nigeria, no woman has ever been
elected governor. The highest has been deputy
governor. I was therefore naturally sympathetic
towards Alhassan, who was going to be the first
elected female governor not just in the north but all
over Nigeria. You would appreciate this the more
when you realise that no woman has been deputy
governor in any northern state. If the region could
not produce a female deputy governor, it would take
a miracle to produce a governor. And I believed the
miracle was about to happen in Taraba through
Alhassan when the judgment was delivered. Maybe I
should also add that I have five beautiful daughters
who, I hope, would aspire to leadership in northern
Nigeria someday.
However, my enthusiasm about Alhassan was
curtailed when I read the tribunal’s judgment in full.
As a lawyer who specialises in constitutional law, I
was far from impressed. The loopholes were too
many. It appears the honourable judges were also as
enthusiastic as I am about Nigeria producing a
female governor. That is the only sense I can make
out of the judgment which ignored so many glaring
incompetent prayers by Alhassan and her party in
their petition. I would try to simplify the arguments of
the petitioners and the respondents as well as the
judgment as much as possible. I will highlight what I
believe are the shaky grounds on which the judges
arrived at their decisions.
For starters, the petitioners apparently filed their
petition out of time. Section 285(5) of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as
amended), provides thus: “An election petition shall
be filed within 21 days after the date of the
declaration of result of the election.” The election was
first conducted on April 11, 2015. It was declared
inconclusive by INEC, with a run-off election held on
April 25, 2015. Ishaku was declared winner with a
total of 369,318 votes while Alhassan came second
with 275,984 votes. The petitioners, it would appear,
deliberately omitted the dates from their petition so
as not to be caught out. In law, the competence of a
case is as important as its substance; if you violate a
procedure, you lose grip of the case.
The second area of interest to me is that while
Alhassan and APC started on a very solid ground that
Arc. Ishaku was not validly nominated, which is one
of the very reasons an election can be nullified, they
somehow undermined their own argument by failing
to make the consequential prayers as established in
law and in settled cases. Since the major ground of
APC’s petition is that Ishaku was not qualified to
contest the governorship election of Taraba State and
his nomination was therefore invalid because of
substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the
Electoral Act and by reason of corrupt practices,
Section 140(2) of the Act provides that they have to
pray for nullification of election and an order for a
fresh election. They did not. This again weakens their
petition.
The third area that also drew my attention is that
there were glaring contradictions in the petition.
Alhassan and APC started out by saying Ishaku was
the validly nominated candidate of PDP. They listed
several wards where electoral fraud was allegedly
committed. In my opinion, this is a very good line of
argument to pursue. Many elections have been
nullified by the courts since April because of
allegations of corrupt practices. However, I think that
Alhassan and APC spoilt their own case by arguing
from another side of their mouth that Ishaku was not
even a candidate in the election. It is not allowed in
law for you to approbate and reprobate. You cannot
say someone is your husband and should give you
upkeep allowance and then argue that he was not
even your husband in the first place.
I am a bit mystified that the tribunal decided to rule
in Alhassan’s favour in the face of all the facts of the
case. It specifically ruled that because Ishaku was not
validly nominated, he was never a candidate and the
person who came second should be sworn in as
governor. Alhassan’s lawyers would be saying Father
Christmas came to town too early. Going by Section
140(2) of the Electoral Act, where an election is
nullified on the ground that the person who obtained
the highest votes at the election was not qualified to
contest the questioned election, it says the tribunal
SHALL NOT declare the person with second highest
votes as elected but SHALL order a fresh election.
There is something that is not very pretty about the
conclusion of the honourable judges. The Court of
Appeal and the Supreme Court may not agree with
them.
Without doubt, Ishaku and his lawyers would feel
justice has been miscarried. If I were in their
position, I would feel the same way. While I am still
hopeful that the minorities would rule Taraba
someday, I prefer things done within the ambit of
justice and fair play. If Tarabans have voted for the
governor of their choice, any attempt to impose a
different governor on them through the judiciary has
the potential to create a serious crisis in the state. If
the majority of the people wanted Alhassan, they
would have voted for her in April. But, in this case,
they did not. I would vote for fair play any day, even if
I am not that politically active
Source: Taraba News
For More Updates
Facebook: Rhapsodi Affos Blog
Twitter: @Rhapsodi_Affos, @Affos_Blog
0 Comments