Appeal court affirms Uba Sani as Kaduna governor

The court of appeal in Abuja has affirmed the election of Uba Sani as Kaduna state governor.

In a judgment delivered on Friday, the court’s three-member panel of justices unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Mohammed Ashiru.

The PDP and Ashiru had challenged the outcome of the governorship election held in the state on March 18.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Sani as winner of the poll after scoring 730, 001 votes to defeat Ashiru, who polled 719, 196 votes.

Ashiru and the PDP approached the tribunal to challenge the result.

The petitioners alleged that Uba was not duly elected by a majority of valid votes cast in the election, adding that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.

They alleged that some polling unit results were wrongfully cancelled, insisting that there were inconsistencies in accreditation records from INEC.

However, in the judgment delivered on September 28, two of the three judges on the tribunal panel dismissed the petition on technical grounds.

Victor Oviawie, who led the panel, deemed the petition abandoned, noting that the PDP and its candidate did not file their pre-hearing application within the time prescribed by law.

THE VERDICT

Affirming the judgment of the tribunal, the court of appeal said the petition was rightly deemed abandoned.

Obietonbara Daniel-Kalio, who led the panel, said records before it established that the petitioners acted in breach of Paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022, when they prematurely applied to the tribunal for the issuance of a pre-hearing notice.

Noting that the law provided that such application must be filed seven days after the close of pleadings by the parties, the court waved aside the argument of the appellants that they acted “out of the abundance of caution”.

It held that vigilance in prosecuting a matter could not be equated with jumping the gun and that one of the essential elements for the exercise of jurisdiction by a court “is that a case must be initiated by due process of the law”.

The appellate court also held that statements on oath made by most of the appellants’ witnesses were invalid because they were not filed alongside the petition.

It held that the failure to frontload statements of the witnesses within the 21 days prescribed for filing of the petition, rendered them incompetent.

Furthermore, the court said some other witnesses gave hearsay evidence.

It resolved all the five issues that were raised in the appeal, against the appellants.

“The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Parties are to bear their respective costs,” the court held.