JUSTICE Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday dismissed a suit seeking the sack of Aminu Tambuwal as Governor of Sokoto State. Umaru Dahiru (a former Senator), and Abubakar Sanyinna, who were governorship aspirants of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Sokoto had sued, complaining among others, that the party’s primary of December 14, 2017, which produced Tambuwal as the party’s candidate, was marred by irregularities, mainly alleged non-accreditation of voters who voted during the exercise. Justice Kolawole, in a judgment yesterday, held that the suit was without merit and that the plaintiffs failed to prove the irregularities they alleged marred the primary.
The judge said even if they were able to prove their case, it would make no useful purpose to nullify the outcome of the primary because the Federal High Court, not being an election petition tribunal, lacked the jurisdiction to order a fresh governorship election. Justice Kolawole said it would have been different if the plaintiffs Abuja court dismisses suit seeking Tambuwal’s sack Eric IKHILAE, Abuja Eric IKHILAE, Abuja had claimed to be the winners of the primary. He said had the plaintiffs been able to prove that they won the primary, the court could have simply removed Tambuwal and order the winner of the primary to take over.
The judge noted that the provisions section 31(1) of the Electoral Act and section 178(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution, had prescribed that a party’s governorship primary must be held not earlier than 150 days and not later than 30 days before the expiration of the last holder of the office. Justice Kolawole said to grant the plaintiffs’ prayer will violate the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed timeline. He said: “By these provisions, a time line has been prescribed for the submission of first defendant’s (APC’s) nominated candidates to run for the office of Governor, Sokoto State.
“Plaintiffs’ suit is not one in which they seek any relief by which they want to be declared as the winner of the first defendant’s governorship primary election held on December 4, 2014, in order to meet the timeline prescribed by both section 31(1) of the Electoral Act (supra) and section 178(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution. “By section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) the jurisdiction which this court has and can exercise is strictly limited to cause of action that arose from party’s primary election which the Federal High Court as the first of court instance in the exercise of its jurisdiction can either uphold or modified.
“Where the result such as Exhibit M attached to the plaintiffs’ affidavit is nullified, the court has the power to order a fresh primary election provided that doing so will not affect or distort the timeline prescribed by the Electoral Act (supra) and the Constitution for the conduct of fresh primary election. “But I am not in any doubt that this court does not have the jurisdiction to order a fresh governorship election to be held, for instance, in Sokoto State that will mandatorily and must compulsorily involve all the political parties that participated in the April 2015 governorship election.
“The question is of what use will it be if this court, as a court of equity, to grant the plaintiffs’ reliefs, nullify the primary election and order a fresh primary election to be conducted, when it knows it lacks the jurisdiction to make any consequential order, even on the authority of the Supreme Court’s decision attached to the plaintiffs’ further affidavit, to direct the third defendant (INEC) to conduct a fresh governorship election so that whoever wins the fresh primary election among the first defendant’s five contestants can square it up in a general election with the candidates of other political parties?
“This is because an order to conduct fresh governorship election cannot be made, even when it is claimed …because the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to order a fresh general election as it is not a court or tribunal constituted pursuant to section 133 (1) to (3) of the Electoral Act (supra) and section 285(2) of the Constitution 1999 as amended,” Justic Kolawole said. Earlier, he dismissed the objection by the APC and Tambuwal in which they had argued that the plaintiffs, due to the contentious nature of the facts of the case, ought to have commenced the suit as a writ of summons and not an originating summons. He said the originating summons filed by the plaintiff was sufficient for the court to resolve issues raised in the case.
I appreciate comments. Air your Views in the Comment box Below.
Do me a Favour: Please share this post on Facebook, Twitter or other Social Networks you use below. I'll really appreciate.
