As it is widely spread by some quarters that the federal high court sitting in Jalingo has cleared Sani Danladi from Contesting future elections. The Federal High Court sitting in Jalingo on Friday allegedly gave a judgment nullifying a Supreme Court judgment that barred Sani from contesting any election in the state for the next 10 years. 


Justice Simon Amobeda in his judgment which reads thus: whether the federal High court has a jurisdiction to set aside it's an earlier judgment on certificate issues, the presiding judge continues by defining the concept of what jurisdiction is; 


"He defines jurisdiction in law as the ability to decide or re-decide it's a decision" he further affirmed the court of Law has the jurisdiction to set aside its earlier judgment or make another decision if there is a hole in the earlier judgment.


From the above judgment by Justice Simon Amobeda, you will agree with me that this is just an academic Exercise in futility why, because if jurisdiction is defined by the judge as stated above then it is only the Supreme Court that has that jurisdiction to re-decide its earlier decision on stopping Sani Danladi from Contesting any elections until after 10 years. 


It could be recalled that before the 2019 general elections a high court sitting in Jalingo had disqualified Abubakar Sani Danladi from contesting the election after it was found that he presented a fake document to the INEC (forged ). The case went on to the court of appeal before the elections and unto the Supreme Court after the elections where the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower Court confirming that the certificate presented by Sani Danladi to the INEC was fake and forged. 


It was on the same judgment that the Supreme Court barred Sani Danladi from contesting any elections until after 10 years and that should be by 2027 and not 2023 as widely spread by some Quarters. To buttress more on this, you could all recall that the 2019 Taraba State governorship tribunal sitting in Abuja had substituted the candidate of APC after an application was received by the panel from counsels of the APC with reasons that the Supreme Court has affirmed the disqualification of their candidate who was Sani Danladi and was replaced by Professor Sani Yahaya. This was happening after elections had been decided and a winner emerged and that was the candidate of the PDP (Arc Darius Dickson Ishaku). This action was a clear indication that the APC itself had confirmed that their candidate (Sani Danladi) was guilty as charged with the offense of forgery hence applied for substitution immediately.


The court is a well-defined institute and can not floor her orders as ranking is what makes it unique as an arm. The federal high court yes; has the jurisdiction of hearing a case that was yet to be decided by the apex court (Supreme) but has no powers anymore to up-turn an order that has been effected and sealed by the highest court in the country during an open sitting with Panel of judges presiding over such. The case against Sani Danladi was a case of forgery in which punishment was served to that effect and such must be carried out to the latter and until then no court can revisit the same case to up-turn it unless the supreme Court revisits to re-decide the matter.


For some people to come out to say Sani Danladi has been cleared to run for political office in Taraba state by 2023 is not true and it is just a means of making a caricature of the Judiciary. There was no place where it was mentioned either in the judgment by the Supreme Court or even the lower court  t t Sani Danladi is to present an affidavit after the judgment to avert the effects of the judgment against him by the Supreme Court


On this note, it should be made clear to APC and the good people of Taraba that Sani Abubakar can not contest in the forthcoming general elections as a candidate of any political party as he has been barred from such activities until after 10 years. The state high court only cleared Sani on the provision of an affidavit to be used in the future in replacement of the forged certificate he presented earlier and this can only take effect after 10 years have elapsed from the date of the Supreme Court judgment.


The high court set aside a judgment of the Supreme Court that doesn't only sound uncalm to the ear but also an effort to market the Judiciary in such a manner that is not only contradictory but also hopeless to the society.


By Nelson C. Len




This article is entirely the opinion of the author and does not anyway represent the opinion of Rhapsodi Affos Blog editors