Understanding the
Legal Battle in the Sokoto State Governorship Election Petition
By
Barrister Dahiru
Sani Muhammad
kjarkilla@yahoo.com
Faculty of Law
ABU Zaria
The way and manner in
which elections are being handled in Nigeria is viewed differently by
Nigerians depending on their level of education, their understanding
of legal issues, or even their status in life. This may be the reason
why people tend to be surprised why certain court decisions on similar
matters differ; hence leading to so much confusion. It is this
confusion the present writer is trying to clear on how the legal
tussle in Sokoto state is unfolding. This is to enable all interested
parties have a general understanding of the whole situation.
The legal battle over
the seat of Sokoto state governorship between the candidate of DPP,
Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi and Alhaji Magatakarda Wamakko of
PDP, began immediately after the April 14, 2007 gubernatorial
election. The DPP immediately after election contested the result at
the Sokoto Election Petition Tribunal, contesting among others, the
qualification of PDP’s candidate, Aliyu Magatakarda, to contest the
election for multiple nominations, lack of proper membership of the
PDP and lack of a valid running mate.
This petition which
was dismissed at the lower tribunal ultimately went on appeal to the
court of Appeal Kaduna, which on April 11, 2008 set aside the decision
of the lower court and ordered for fresh election, which was conducted
on 24th May 2008. This election also raised certain legal issues,
which DPP and its candidate Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi are
contesting at the relevant tribunals.
The Court of Appeal
in its judgement over the April 14, 2007 election in Sokoto held that
the election of His Excellency Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko be annulled
for substantial irregularities in the conduct of the election and on
the ground that Aliyu M Wamakko was not qualified to contest the 14th
April 2007 governorship election. The Court ordered that a fresh
election be conducted between the same parties and candidates as
appear on Exhibit R8 (the form on which names of nominated candidates
were listed).
To DPP and its flag
bearer Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi, the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) , erred in allowing Alhaji Aliyu
Magatakarda of PDP to participate in the re-run election of 24th May
2008, as a result of which they ran to re-constituted governorship
tribunal to challenge Aliyu Magatakarda’s participation in the
election and his subsequent swearing-in having not been qualified to
contest in the re-run election for invalid nomination prior to both
the April 14, 2007 and May 24, 2008 elections.
Two main issues were
presented to the tribunal for determination with regards to the May
24, 2008 re-run election which is the matter in contention. According
to the dissenting judgement of the tribunal “Enveloping, shrouding and
beclouding these two fundamental issues are a myriad of issues
bothering on jurisdiction, abuse of court process and incompetence”.
On the question of jurisdiction and abuse of Court processes as
canvassed by the respondents, a majority judgement of the tribunal
decided on the affirmative i.e that it had no jurisdiction to
entertain the matter.
Also, the majority
judgement decided that sitting on the same matter would amount on an
abuse of court process, in view of the fact that another matter has
been decided by the Federal High Court and now on appeal at the Court
of Appeal seeking to know whether Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko was
qualified to contest in the May 24, 2008 re-run governorship election
in Sokoto state. The appeal to the Court of Appeal resulted in the
Federal High Court declining jurisdiction on the issue.
On the other hand, a
dissenting decision of two members of the tribunal disagreed with the
majority decision to say that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the
matter by virtue of section 145 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act 2006
which gives the tribunal the jurisdiction to inquire into whether a
person whose election was questioned at the time of the election was
not qualified to contest the election; in this case the 24thth May
2008 election in Sokoto state. On the issue of abuse of Court process,
the dissenting judgement also disagreed with the majority, as the
issues before the tribunal and those before the Federal High Court are
radically different.
Having exhausted
these preliminary issues, the tribunal in the in the dissenting
judgement of Okonkwo and Ahamaije (JJ) went further to examine the
issue of qualification of Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko to contest the
24th May 2008 election, which is the main issue in contention.
According to them, by virtue of the Court of Appeal’s decision which
led to the re-run election, Aliyu Wamakko of the PDP was not
qualified. Their argument is not difficult to appreciate as the April
14, 2007 election was annulled due to irregularities in the form of
multiple nominations, lack of proper sponsorship and lack of valid
running mate with regard to the purported winner of the election,
Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko of the PDP. Therefore, a fresh nomination
ought to have been made to INEC, if PDP had actually wanted him to be
its candidate. This is by virtue of section 32 (7). The two judges
also quoted section 177 and 187 (1) of the 1999 Constitution which
they said apply to general election such as the April 14, 2007
election, which was annulled by the Court of Appeal and ordered a
fresh election within 90 days. The new election ordered was in the
opinion of the dissenting judgement a bye-election which this writer
entirely agrees with.
In arriving at their
dissenting decision, Okonkwo and Ahamaije (JJ) listed some authorities
some of which are sections 32 (1) – 32 (7) to buttress their argument.
Section 32, which contains the main reason, reads as follows:
Section (1)
Every political party should not later than 120 days before the date
appointed to a general election under the provisions of this Act,
submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms, the list of
candidates the party proposed to sponsor at the elections
Section (2) The
list shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by each candidate
at the High Court of a state, indicating that he has fulfilled all the
constitutional requirements for election into that office
Section (3) The
commission shall, within 7 days of the receipt of the personal
particulars of the candidate, publish same in the constituency where
the candidate intends to contest the election
Section (4) Any
person who has reasonable ground to believe that any information given
by a candidate in the affidavit is false may file a suit at the High
Court of a State of Federal High Court against such a person seeking a
declaration that the information contained in the Affidavit is false
Section (5) If
the court determines that any of the information in the affidavit is
false the court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from
contesting
Section (6) A
political party which presents to the commission the name of a
candidate who does not meet the qualifications stipulated in this
Section commits an offence and is liable to conviction to a maximum
fine of N500,000
Section (7)
Every political party shall not later than 14 days before the date
appointed for a bye-election by the commission submit the list of
candidates from the party for the bye-election
After a cursory look
at the above section, the dissenting judges in their decision believed
section 32 (1) applied to only to a general election such as was held
on 14thth April 2007, but section 32 (7) applies to the case of
bye-election or special election, that is where an election was
cancelled and a new one held. Also, according to them section 32 (7)
as opposed top section 32 (1) provides or affords the 1st
respondent and the political party sponsoring him very ample
opportunity of remedying or rectifying whatever errors were found by
the Court of Appeal in the nomination of 1st respondent
(Aliyu Wamakko) for the April 14, 2007 election and to correct same in
the 24th May 2008; it is h=this opportunity which he did not take that
made all votes cast to him null and void, because they were scored in
favour of a party which has not actually sponsored any validly
nominated candidate; hence decided that the petitioners petition
succeeds.
Consequently, the
judges made the following orders:
1.
The 1st
respondent not being validly nominated as at 24th May 2008, was not
qualified to contest the governorship election for Sokoto state held
on May 24, 2008
2.
The 562,395 votes
recorded for the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent and its agents
at the said election are void and wasted
3.
The 1st petitioner
scored majority of lawful votes at the governorship election having
scored 124,046 votes and also scored not less than one quarter of the
lawful votes cast in at least two thirds of the Local Governments
Areas of Sokoto state
4.
1st petitioner is
entitled to be returned by the 3rd and 4th
respondents as having been duly elected Governor of Sokoto state in
the governorship election held on 24thth May 2008
5.
The 1st petitioner
shall forthwith be sworn in as Governor of Sokoto state
6.
There shall be cost
of N10,000 for the petitioners
Dissatisfied with the
decision in the majority judgement, the petitioner went on Appeal to
the Court of Appeal for redress.
It is however,
unfortunate that election petition tribunals in northern Nigeria
always give verdicts that seem watery and confusing to the generality
of the people. These are distinct from the decisions handed down by
their counterparts in the South, which give verdicts that look
somewhat impressive to the people, particularly in some cases such as
gubernatorial elections in Ondo and Edo States. The elections were
annulled and petitioners sworn-in. Why are these kinds of radical
judgements not happening in the north? This is a million dollar
question which only Judiciary can answer.
Judiciary being the
last hope for an aggrieved party, from all indications is not doing
what it is supposed to be doing especially in the case of Sokoto. In
spite of the judgement of the Court of Appeal which nullified the
election on the ground that Governor Wamakko was not validly nominated
by the PDP, INEC went ahead and allowed him to participate in the
re-run election. This has raised a lot of doubts about the integrity
of the Court of Appeal’s judgement and INEC in allowing the same
candidate to re-contest.
Since the matter is
now back to the Court of Appeal, the issues to be determined are
whether the lower tribunal had actually no jurisdiction to hear the
case, and whether the 1st respondent (Wamakko) was
qualified to have contested the May 2008 re-run election in Sokoto
state.
Since Courts do not
normally overrule themselves, Wamakko is already not qualified to have
contested the 14thth April 2007 election. What will remain is to
determine whether he was qualified to re-run for the May 2008
election. This we think and are sure is not easy for the Court of
Appeal to find out. Justice delayed, it is they say, justice denied.
|