BREAKING: Sokoto Gov’s Election Affirmed As Judge Admits ‘Conflicting’ Appeal Court Judgments

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday dismissed the appeal filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), Sai’du Umar, against the judgment of the Sokoto State Election Petitions Tribunal which upheld the election of Governor Ahmed Aliyu of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The presiding justice of the three-man panel of the appeal court, Ita George Mbaba, admitted while reading his verdicts that there are “conflicting” appellate court judgements on some aspects of the election petition regarding credible evidence tendered in court.

He said but he was looking up to the Supreme Court for final determination.

Umar had challenged Aliyu’s election victory as announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)after the March 18 governorship election.

He asked the Tribunal to quash the election of the governor and his deputy over the alleged falsification of certificates, adding that they were not educated up to school leaving certificate level.

Umar further claimed electoral irregularities, noncompliance with the Electoral Act by the staff of INEC, as well as the governor’s failure to score the majority of lawful votes cast.

However, the governor’s legal team presented exhibits showing Aliyu was educated up secondary school level.

The three-man panel of the Tribunal led by Justice Haruna Msheila dismissed the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to prove their case with credible evidence.

Dissatisfied with the Judgment, Umar approached the Appeal court for redress.

On Monday, a three-man panel of the appeal court, led by Mbaba held that the Tribunal was right to say that the PDP subpoenaed witnesses called to present exhibits, were incompetent to testify while expunging their evidence.

Although the panel was of the view, that “it amounts to asking for the impossibility to expect subpoenaed witness to frontload their statements on oath alongside the petition”, it said this view appears to have been overthrown by the latest decisions of Appeal Court and Supreme Court in the cases of Peter Obi of the Labour party and Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic party, against the election of President Bola Tinubu.

The appeal court said it is now bound by the verdict of the Supreme Court which states that all “witness statement on oath must be frontloaded along with a petition.”

The judge subsequently said the exhibits tendered by the PDP “stands rejected”

The appeal court also held the Tribunal was right to hold that the governor did not present forged certificate as claimed by the appellants.

The appeal court held the 1999 Constitution states one must be educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent, to contesting for election.

More so, the appeal court ruled that there was no serious challenge made by the PDP about certificate forgery except in variations of the governor’s names in different certificates.

But the appeal court found that the Tribunal did not make actual pronouncement on about 138 exhibits ( of 138 polling units) (Form EC40G) INEC incident forms (where election were cancelled) as those documents did not fall within the group of the ones being expunged.

Mbaba said it appears that the forms contained facts showing cancellation of elections, overvoting and disruption, adding that this shows something went wrong culminating in cancellations.

He held INEC did not deny the claims of cancellation and yet went ahead to announce the governor winner.

On the issue of the INEC Form EC40G documents, Mbaba admitted there ” have conflicting” decisions regarding such credible exhibits.

He observed that there are still decisions of the appeal court that still insists that appellants needs to call oral evidence despite providing credible evidence.

“This issue is also resolved against the appellants(PDP) unfortunately. This appeal is dismissed” Mbaba said, adding “we know that this matter will go up to the Supreme Court. We look up to them.”