The Abuja division of the Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment in the governorship appeal by the candidate of the All Progressive Congress (APC), Nentawe Yilwatda Goshwe against the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Governor Caleb Mutfwang.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared
Caleb Mutfwang winner of the March 18 governorship election in the state with 525,299 votes defeating 17 other candidates, including Yiltwatda, who polled 481,370 votes.
Not satisfied, Goshwe challenged the election of Mutfwang at the tribunal claiming that the governor was not validly nominated and sponsored by his Party (PDP), that PDP has no structure to sponsor any candidate for the governorship election.
He equally alleged that the election of Mutfwang was not conducted in compliance with the electoral act and Mutfwang did not win the majority of lawful votes cast during the election.
However, a three-member panel of the tribunal headed by Justice R. Irele-Ifijeh in an unanimous dismissed the petition for lacking in merit.
Not satisfied, the APC candidate further appealed the tribunal judgment and asked the appellate court to declare him winner on the grounds that the governor was not qualified to have contested the election because he was not validly sponsored and nominated by a political party -the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP).
He argued that the PDP lacked structure and was not qualified to sponsor any candidate in an election.
The APC candidate also told the Appellate court in his notice of appeal that there was over-voting and non-compliance with the 2022 Electoral Act during the 2023 governorship election in the state.
In arguing his appeal on Saturday, lead counsel to the appellants, Prof. Olagoke (SAN) urged the court to set aside the judgment of the tribunal and declare his clients as winner.
He told the court that the case of the appellants is that the 2nd responded (Governor Mutfwang), was not qualified to contest election by virtue of lack of valid sponsorship by a political party, contrary to section 177 (C) of the 1999 Constitution.
Olagoke said his submission was predicated on various court judgments including decisions of the appellate court adding that the court is bound to abide by these 22 decisions for consistency. He added that same court of appeal had for same reason upturned the purported election victory of other PDP candidates for non obedience of court orders adding that same affected Gov Mutfwang.
He argued that the respondents did not put anything before the court for it to depart from those decisions.
Besides, he submitted that having shown that the governor was not sponsored by the PDP, he remained an independent candidate contrary to section 177 (C) of the 1999 Constitution.
He urged the court to hold that “having been disqualified by reasons of lack of valid sponsorship by a political party, all the votes scored by him are wasted votes and the 2nd candidate with the highest number of votes should be declared winner of the election.”
But in a motion dated October 30 but filed on November 2, 2023, the governor through his legal team anchored by a former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF), Mr. Godwin Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the appellate court to strike out some grounds of the appeal for being incompetent.
He equally filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the appeal.
Attacking the competent of the appeal, Agabi drew the attention of the court to the fact that the issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate for election is purely an internal affairs of a political party, which the court has no jurisdiction to inquire into.
He submitted that the word qualification used by the petitioner is misleading as the issue raised by the petition bordered on nomination and sponsorship.
On this, Agabi who was with seven other Senior Advocates of Nigeria including Damien Dodo, urged the court to take cognizance of the fact that the word sponsorship and nomination is used 23 times in the petition.
Agabi who urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit further submitted that the in about 30 case law and decisions of the appellate court, the court following judicial precedents, rightly held that it lacked jurisdiction on issues of nomination and sponsorship of candidates of political parties.
The Governor’s counsel submitted that the petitioners contradicted themselves by urging the court to declare them as winners of an election they claimed was invalid, null and void.
He then submitted that in urging the court to pronounce them winner of the election, the petitioners have admitted to the credibility and validity of the election.
“The petition is bedeviled with allegations that the election was marred by acts of non-compliance, corruption and over-voting. The question is can you now turn around to ask the court to declare you a winner of the election that you have stigmatized that is null and void?
” The petition was clearly speculative. On one breadth you are saying the election is a invalid and in another you are saying it was valid and you should be declared a winner,” Agabi submitted.
He accordingly urged the court to dismiss the appeal and upheld the judgment of the tribunal.
In like manner, counsel to the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), Chief Emeka Etiaba (SAN), moved a motion urging the court to strike out grounds 1 and 8 of appellants grounds of appeal together with some other issues raised in the appeal for lacking in competent.
In addition, he moved a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the appeal.
While canvassing argument on the substantive appeal, Etiaba who had the permission of Ibrahim Isiaku (SAN) to argue the appeal urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
He argued that the basis of the appellants submissions with respect to the qualification of the governor was incorrect in law.
He drew the attention of the court to the judgment of the tribunal that the governor was validly nominated and sponsored by a political party (3rd responded).
Etiaba added that the issue of nomination and sponsorship is an internal affairs of a political party and a pre-election issue that only a High Court has jurisdiction to entertain.
Earlier, counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, W. A. Olajide urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
He drew the attention of the court to the testimonies of Petitioner’s Witnesses(PW2) and PW5 who admitted at the tribunal that the election was valid and they voted during the election.
In addition he submitted that PW49, an expert witness for the appellants agreed that if the methodology adopted in analyzing the result is faulty, the final result will equally be faulty.
Olajide finally drew the attention of the court to exhibit U- which is an INEC report that it complied with court orders and that even the PW16 admitted that the governor was a member of the PDP.
After listening to submissions of counsel to both parties, the three-member panel headed by Justice Elfrieda Williams- Dawodu said “judgment is reserved to a date to be communicated to parties”.