New Nigerian Newspapers Online Edition

Constitutional lawyer and Counsel to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), MALAM YAHAYA MAHMOOD clears the air on the continued confusion and speculation trailing the voiding of Governor Magatakarda Wamakko’s election by the Court of Appeal and the orders arising therefrom.

By Benjamin Ike_______________________________________________

What is the cause of the continued confusion, rumours and speculations about Governor Wamakko being eligible or otherwise to contest the Sokoto re-election?

The Court of Appeal gave two reasons for annulling the election:

Firstly, substantial irregularities in the conduct of the election as a result of failure by INEC to defend the allegations by Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) and its candidate.

Secondly, that INEC allowed Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to present Wamako as its candidate without following the procedure for proper withdrawal of his membership and candidature of All Nigeria Peoples’ Party (ANPP), and waiver granted in retrospect, which disqualified him to contest the election as at 14th April, 2007.

But he is otherwise constitutionally qualified under S.177 of the 1999 Constitution, since he is more than 35 years old, a Nigerian citizen, a member of PDP and sponsored by PDP. The Court of Appeal ordered fresh election between the same parties and candidates as appeared on Exhibit R8 i.e. the result declared by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which included Governor Wamakko.

But two orders were issued by the Court and the impression is that he was qualified in one and not qualified in the other.

In the two orders, what the Court said is that the fresh election ordered shall be between the same parties and candidates as appear on Exhibits R8, and Governor Wamako’s name is on Exhibit R8.

We are reliably informed that DPP has filed a case in the Federal High Court Abuja asking for the interpretation of the judgment.

This cannot be true. No Federal High Court has jurisdiction to interprete a judgment of the Court of Appeal. In any case, as far as Governor Wamako’s candidature is concerned, there is nothing to interpret. The Court said he can re-contest. His party, the PDP, said he can re-contest. INEC has clarified that he can re-contest.

What is the difference between the Sokoto and the Adamawa case?

In Adamawa’s case, which was filed by Labour Party, what the Court of Appeal said is that the Labour Party cannot change its candidate for the purpose of the fresh election. That was a case from Federal High Court Katsina to the Court of Appeal on reference. In Sokoto case, the Court found that he was not qualified to stand election for some reasons to do with the preliminaries before the election but ordered that he could re-contest, may be because he is otherwise constitutionally qualified. They so ordered.

What other fundamental differences are there between Sokoto on one hand and Kogi and Adamawa on the other?

In Kogi and Adamawa, the issue was exclusion, so the Court ordered fresh election with all the candidates nominated.

In the case of Sokoto, the issues involve non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act which affected only the April 14th election which was nullified. But since none of the candidates who contested April 14th, 2007 was Constitutionally disqualified to re-contest, the Court of Appeal ordered that the same candidates, all of them, should re-contest.

May be readers would like to know why Labour Party left Federal High Court Yola and went and filed the case at Federal High Court Katsina.

There is one Federal High Court in Nigeria, and the Court has jurisdiction throughout the country. But then only the lawyer who filed the case will tell you why he went and filed the case in Katsina. But the issue of jurisdiction was not raised in the Federal High Court or the Court of Appeal. But it can be raised in the Supreme Court.

What would you think will happen to the case filed before the Federal High Court Abuja in respect of the Sokoto case?

I may be wrong. But I think the Judge or Court will be courageous to tell them that he has no jurisdiction to interpret the judgment of the Court of Appeal in respect of the Sokoto case. He cannot also say the Court of Appeal was wrong by not following the Adamawa case which will amount to sitting on appeal over a final judgment of the Court of Appeal.