Sakkwatawa Await Appeal Court Verdict

Dr. Shamsuddeen Tanko

Ever since October 2007 when the Sokoto election tribunal delivered its judgement on the state gubernatorial case, many a Nigerian keeps on anxiously waiting to a day when the Appeal Court would make its pronouncement on the case. No doubt, the judgement delivered by Justice Oniyangi-led tribunal irritated the minds of all concerned democrats when it went extra miles to shower abuses on the petitioner to the case. Apparently, no one was left doubting the extant to which the tribunal allowed itself to be compromised, an issue that had dominated public discourse in the Seat of the Caliphate some weeks before the judgement was delivered.

For the sake of review, the case brought before the tribunal by the petitioner had to do with critical issues of nomination and sponsorship of candidates by political parties to stand elections. Specifically, the PDP victory in Sokoto state during the April 14, 2007 election was petitioned based on shortcomings and outright contradictions.

It was, for instance, petitioned that there was a case dual sponsorship by one of the political parties in the state. That on a Certified Copy of Form E.C 4B (IV) of INEC filled by Wamakko on February 12, 2007, two (2) Parties – ANPP & PDP – were entered in the Column reserved for the name of Party sponsoring him

There was also issues bordering on same dual sponsorship and substitution Wamakko had presented a letter to INEC Sokoto from the National Secretary of PDP, Chief Ojo Madueke, dated February 5, 2007, substituting Alhaji Muhtar Shagari with Wamakko as the Party’s gubernatorial candidate.

When ANPP HQ scribe was invited by the Tribunal, the Petitioners’ claim was admitted that Wamakko attended and signed the register of the ANPP meeting held in Abuja on February 8, 2007. If PDP HQ had substituted Shagari with Wamakko on February 5, why should same Wamakko attend the ANPP meeting held in Abuja on February 8? It is contended that 3 days after the receipt of Madueke’s letter, Wamakko was still enjoying dual party membership

Another issue raised in the petition revolves round deputy governorship? That on a certified copy of Form E.C 4B of INEC Wamakko entered the name of Senator Bello J. Gada as his Deputy. However, in the section reserved for the name & signature of the Deputy Gubernatorial candidate, the name of Alhaji Mukhtar Shagari was entered. As for the signature column on the Form, neither Gada nor Shagari signed.

Other charge brought before the tribunal was that Mukhtar Shagari did not undertake an oath of contest for the deputy governorship post. That neither Gada nor Shagari took an Oath as required by Electoral Act as a requirement for Deputy Gubernatorial contest. Shagari claimed to have taken the Oath at Nasarawa State High Court in Lafia on February 12, 2007. However, a certified copy of the receipt of payment Shagari made for the Oath was dated April 27, 2007. It is, therefore, contended that the Oath was taken some 2 weeks after April 14 gubernatorial election, not before the election as required by Law.

No wonder, the pronouncement by Justice Oniyangi that the petitioner was merely a busy body and that the case was entirely a pre-election matter generated simultaneous uproar from legal experts, democrats and public commentators who were not only shocked but disappointed by the judgement.

Both the legal experts and public commentators were questioning the usage of the operational term ‘pre-election’ as perceived by Oniyangi and his colleagues in determining the Sokoto case. To so many, election is a process that begins, not with voting as believed by Oniyangi, but with validation of voter cards, nomination and sponsorship of candidates by political parties, campaigning down to voting, counting, collation and announcing of results to dispensation of petitions by the election tribunal and other Courts.

It is surprising, therefore, that all was able to easily locate a loophole in Oniyangi’s narrow view by considering issues of nomination and sponsorship of candidates as ‘pre-election matters’. By implication he sees election as an event that begins and ends with voting and declaration of results. This misconception has since been clarified by an Appeal Court in Ilorin.

One can exactly predict what the Appeal Court pronouncement would be on the case, but all believe that the learned Judges that would review the issues petitioned would do justice to the case. Afterall, theirs would not only be a verdict but a law to serve as a reference in the similar election matters that may arise in the near and distant future in Nigeria’s democratic voyage.

As we await the verdict, unfortunately, things are fast crumbling in the state. Expectedly, the Oniyangi judgement seems to have further intoxicated the present administration into becoming wild in its approach to democracy and governance. From October 2007 to present, the only policies and programmes it has so far come up with are witch hunting of opposition members and war of vendetta on the person of the former governor of the state.

While all this is going on, little did they realise that the name earned by the previous administration can never be erased from the good books of the state. Those who attempt doing so, as is being tried now, are not only wasting time, energy and resources but pulling themselves politically down. Least they remember, the intricacies of local politics in Sokoto are so complex for amateur politician to cope up.

It makes no sense who is in support of who in the State. The most important thing is for the Appeal Court to be allowed to employ its wisdom in determining the Sokoto case before it. We all cherish the stand of Judiciary in the Nigeria’s search for viable democratic culture. Citizens now consider the Judiciary as their last hope and source of inspiration and strength. Salute to our learned Justices.

For now, we remain worried by the ongoing massive withdrawal of public funds by politicians and top functionaries in the state. Equally disturbing is the way and manner contracts are hurriedly awarded and paid with no recourse to due process. Are all this the right response to the allegation by the aggrieved persons that Mr. President has not agreed to intervene on their behalf in the case pending at Kaduna? Or is it a clear sign that the days in office of the occupants of the Sokoto government house would soon be over; hence the scramble by all to get to his/her satisfaction before the trumpet is blown from Kaduna. Yeah, once verdict is pronounced at that level, swearing-in function of the person so declared by the Court follows immediately.

As we patiently await to hear from Kaduna, we employ all the parties involved in this case to realise that the Seat of the Caliphate has a long history of political civilisation that ought to have been shared to other neighbouring communities. We would not allow a cabal of politicians to overnight change the course of our heritage by sabotaging our ideals and inspiration by imposing wrong leaders on us. Our votes and opinions must count. The so-called LG election purportedly organised and won by only one party in the state has further brought shame to the state.

To any concerned democrat, what is happening in Sokoto state is but a reflection of how peoples’ mandate is manipulated and abused. At the April 14, 2008 polls, Sakkwatawa were deceived and coerced and made to surrender to the invading forces but in collaboration with enemies of progress from within. Now things are crumbling, and Mr. President is being blamed. For what? Is it not Obasanjo and the likes of Uba that sealed the pact with Kanwuri for the strangulation of our political culture? Is the price not worth the evil job hatched?

May Sokoto state be truly the Seat of the Caliphate.

Dr. Shamsuddeen Tanko,

Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital,

Sokoto