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.