This was stated by a five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, who adjourned the appeal for judgement, after all the parties argued their case and adopted their processes.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, reserved its judgement on the appeal of the Governor of Plateau State, Caleb Mutfwang, seeking to upturn the nullification of his election by the Court of Appeal.
This was stated by a five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, who adjourned the appeal for judgement, after all the parties argued their case and adopted their processes.
Governor Mutfwang, through his legal team led by former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, requested the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal in Abuja’s decision to remove him from office.
He argued that, contrary to the appellate court’s position, the Plateau State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal admitted in evidence a plethora of exhibits establishing that he was validly nominated by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to contest the March 18 gubernatorial election.
Agabi, SAN, argued that after the tribunal properly evaluated both documentary and oral evidence that were adduced by the parties, dismissed as lacking in merit, the petition that was lodged against the outcome of the governorship election by candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Mr. Nentawe Goshwe.
He insisted that the appellate court sacked his client from office on the wrong notion that PDP failed to fully comply with a High Court order that directed it to conduct congresses for the purpose of electing its State Executives.
According to Agabi, SAN, aside from evidence that was tendered to show that the said order was obeyed, under the Constitution of the PDP, the onus of conducting a primary election to select candidates to be sponsored in an election, rests on the National Executive organ of the party.
“A number of exhibits were tendered to prove that valid Congress was conducted and monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC,” Agabi was quoted by Vanguard Newspaper.
He continued: “A video was played before the tribunal showing that congresses held and the person that instituted the court action was see in the video, participating in the process,”
He further contended that, as a pre-election issue, the sponsorship and nomination of a candidate in an election were outside the jurisdiction of both the tribunal and the appeal court.
“More so my lords, the issue of disobedience to court order is not within the purview of section 177 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, relating to the issue of qualification of a candidate to stand an election.
“Invalid nomination and sponsorship of a candidate by a political party is not one of the grounds upon which a petition could be lodged before a tribunal.
“Their whole petition was based on the issue of nomination and sponsorship.
“While the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction over that matter, the Court of Appeal said the issue also related to qualification of the candidate.
“We are here because it seems to us that the Appeal Court departed from your precedent which is that the issue of nomination and sponsorship is a pre-election matter,” Agabi added.
Meanwhile, the APC candidate, through his own legal team led by Prof. Joseph Olatoke, SAN, asked the court to uphold the Court of Appeal decision ordering the INEC to issue a Certificate of Return to him as the candidate who received the most valid votes in the governorship election.
He contended that the PDP’s reluctance to elect its State Executives as instructed by the court constituted it structureless in Plateau State and hence incapable of presenting a legitimate candidate for governor.
Likewise, counsel to the APC, Mr. Omosanya Popoola, prayed the apex court to uphold the judgement that sacked the Appellant from office.
On its part, INEC, through its lawyer, Mr. S. Atung, SAN, withdrew a separate appeal it filed to challenge the Court of Appeal judgement against Mutfwang and it was accordingly dismissed.
After the panel had listened to all the parties, it said the judgement date would be communicated to them.
