Lawyers and the general public are having a hard time comprehending the precise pronouncements of the Court of Appeal in the appeal filed before it by the embattled governor of Kano State, Yusuf Kabir, who was recently sacked by the governorship election tribunal.
The ruling was delivered last week Friday by Justice Moore Adumein who led a three-man panel to preside over the matter.
Confusion however arose from the conflicting orders on the pages of the certified true copy of the judgment which sacked Mr Yusuf and surprisingly upheld his election in the same breath. This incoherence makes it challenging for observers to decipher the exact implications and directives set forth by the appellate court.
The ruling, since it was read in open court, had been a subject of debate among lawyers particularly concerning the new questions it raised regarding consistency in court pronouncements on litigation.
Of particular focus is the issue of what constitutes proper nomination of candidates and the debate on whether disputes regarding nomination fall under pre-election matters or can be argued post-election in the tribunals in the interest of justice and due process.
New dimensions of chaos surfaced in the ruling when the recently released certified true copy carried, in print, conflicting orders as to the overall resolution of the disputes contained in the appeal which had the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission as respondents.
The lead judgment, delivered by Mr Adumein, resolved “live” issues “in favour of the first respondent and against the appellant.” This pronouncement essentially upheld the verdict of the governorship election tribunal which earlier ruled that Mr Yusuf was not duly sponsored by his party, New Nigeria Peoples Party to contest the election and that the candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Nasir Gawuna, was the rightful winner of the election.
Right after this definitive paragraph, which logically concludes the consideration and resolution of various issues and arguments in the judgment, follows an explicitly contradictory paragraph that starkly contrasts the initial ruling and creates uncertainty around the interpretation of the document and the final disposition of issues raised in the appeal.
“In the circumstances, I resolve all the issues in favour of the appellant and against the first respondent,” the paragraph read. This second paragraph holds that “all” issues are resolved in favour of the appellant, Mr Yusuf and added that the judgement of the governorship election tribunal, which sacked Mr Yusuf, is set aside.
“The judgement of the tribunal in Petition No: EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023 between: All Progressives Congress (APC) v. Independent National Electoral Commission & 2 ORS. delivered on the 20th day of September, 2023 is hereby set aside,” it read.
The judgment further awarded one million naira in cost in favour of Mr Yusuf against the respondents of the appeal.
The judgment was unanimous with the two other judges, Bitrus Sanga and Lateef Adebayo Ganiyu signing off on the pronouncements as well as adopting the views and orders expressed as their own.
The spokesperson for the Court of Appeal, Saadatu Musa, when asked to comment on the inconsistencies said she would relay to the justices who delivered the ruling. She has yet to provide updates on whether the CTC would be withdrawn for review.
Also, spokesperson for the National Judicial council, Soji Oye, did not respond to The Gazette’s request for comments and clarification on the matter.
The implications of this contradiction were still being assessed by lawyers preparing to contest the ruling in the Supreme Court, where the ruling is expected to be conclusively interpreted.
The ramifications of the ongoing controversy in the judgment will no doubt cast shadows over an already beleaguered judiciary.
The institution is poised to face increased scrutiny, as analysts and commentators weigh in on the potential implications of this aberration on its already fragile reputation.
Analysts could contend that the conflicting final pronouncement reflects a pattern of untoward political manipulation and back-door negotiations that have plagued the judiciary in recent times.
This trend, they argue, exposes once-sacred and authoritative rulings to last-minute changes and manipulations influenced by new developments stemming from political permutations and manoeuvring.
In a more charitable analysis, the possibility that the contradictions stem from clerical errors does little to alleviate concerns about the unprofessionalism and gross incompetence that several thought leaders allege continues to plague the judiciary.
The fact that such discrepancies persist in a high-profile and widely observed litigation only heightens worries about the overall competence in the nation’s judicial system.
Credit: People Gazette
