by Christiana Gokyo, Jos
PLATEAU STATE: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgment in the appeal filed by Governor Caleb Mutfwang urging it to uphold his election.
Governor Mutfwang had alleged that he was not given fair hearing by the Court of Appeal; therefore, its decision to nullify his election was manifestly flawed.
The Court of Appeal on November 19 sacked the governor and declared the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Nentawe Yilwatda, as the winner.
Mutfwang, however, faulted the Court of Appeal judgment and asked the Supreme Court to restore his mandate.
In his eight issues distilled before the Court of Appeal, Governor Mutfwang argued through his legal team, led by Kanu Agabi (SAN) that only one of them was determined, as others were untouched.
He said the decision of the Court of Appeal was “contrary to the directive of the Supreme Court – that, intermediate courts should pronounce on all issues placed before it.”
The appellant told the Supreme Court that when he presented eight issues before the Court of Appeal, only one was considered to invalidate his election.
During the hearing of the appeal on Tuesday, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by John Okoro, took arguments from lawyers to parties in the case.
After a fierce session of arguments, between Mr. Mutfwang’s counsel, Kanu Agabi, and Mr. Yilwatda’s counsel, J.O. Olatoke, the Supreme Court said a date for judgment would be communicated to parties in the suit.
But, before reserving judgment in the appeal, the Supreme Court raised two fundamental questions as to whether the tribunal has the jurisdiction to listen to issues of party congresses and, also to, whether given its judgments in several cases, issues of nomination and sponsorship – which are pre-election matters – can be entertained by the Tribunal.
Agabi argued that, alleged disobedience to subsisting orders of court is not part of the grounds to consider in disqualifying a candidate sponsored by a political party.
He also argued that, the entire petition was founded on the nomination and sponsorship of his client by the PDP.
He said the court’s ‘departure’ from judicial precedence of the apex court on the issue of sponsorship is a pre-election matter.
The presiding justice of the five-man panel, chaired by Justice Inyang Okoro, asked Agabi to address them on the implication of the court sacking almost all the candidates that contested on the PDP platform in the state over subsisting orders of a court.
Responding, Agabi said he had listed in his brief of arguments how the PDP complied with the order of court.
According to him, the court below only said the compliance was inadequate because the PDP did not have the required numbers of delegates from the Local Government Areas in Plateau State.
“What is the effect of the subsisting order of a high court that said PDP should conduct a valid court?”, the apex court asked again.
Agabi said exhibits were tendered by INEC and others to show that a valid congress was held, adding that, “In case, by the apex court decision, the APC has no standing to challenge the congress of another political party.”
Counsel for the PDP candidate, Prof. J.O. Olatoke, was asked, if the order of a high court, which obviously was given without jurisdiction, can have an effect against the PDP and its candidates.
Olatoke replied that the matter of invalid congress was instituted by PDP chieftains and was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Barrister Omosoya Popoola, counsel for the APC, asked the apex court to uphold the removal of the governor.
“Does the court have jurisdiction to deal with the issue of how a candidate is nominated by a political party?,” the apex court asked him. Poopola said it is not in all cases that the court can decline jurisdiction.
After hearing them, the Supreme Court reserved judgment. The verdict will be passed on/or before January 16, when the appeal would elapse.
Mutfwang insisted that since he was not given fair hearing, the Supreme Court should dismiss the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which invalidated his election.
He added: “It is our further submission that having denied fair hearing to the appellant concerning Notice of Preliminary Objection as well as a motion to strike out the incompetent grounds of appeal, the decision of the lower court to dismiss same is, with all due respect, manifestly flawed.
“The implication of denial of fair hearing renders proceedings null and void. We respectfully urge the Honourable Court to invoke its powers in Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act by upholding the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the appellant embedded in his Brief before the lower court and also granting the Motion of the appellant filed on 2nd November, 2023, before the lower court by striking out Grounds 1-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal of the first and second respondents.”
Mutfwang listed eight reasons why the Supreme Court should validate his election, including the fact that: “The issue of nomination and sponsorship, which underpinned Ground 1 of the petition, is not only a pre-election issue but within the internal affairs of the fourth respondent and, as such, the first and second respondents lacked the locus standi to canvass it.
“The judgment of the lower court, delivered on 19th November, 2023, is fatally flawed for want of jurisdiction, having regard to Section 285(2) of the Constitution (supra).
“Disobedience of court order is not one of the grounds for maintaining election petition under Section 134 of the Electoral Act (supra), nor is it part of Section 177(c) of the Constitution (supra), let alone disqualifying the appellant from contesting the election.
“At any rate, given the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, including but not limited to, exhibits U and 2RA3, the fourth respondent complied with EXHIBIT G1 by conducting State Congress on 25th September, 2021, in Plateau State.
“The evidence of PW16 was thoroughly discredited and controverted and, as such, the lower court was clearly in the wrong to have heavily relied on it against the appellant.
“The first and second respondents woefully failed to discharge the requisite burden of proof on them and, as such, not entitled to the reliefs sought in their petition, more so that having impugned the election as invalid for non-compliance, it is absurd of them to lay claim to victory for the same election.
“The lower court was, with all due respect, in grave error when it held that the tribunal was wrong in striking out the offensive paragraphs of appellant’s reply and in utilising PW16, PW24, PW27, and PW28 as a tribunal of first instance.
“The lower court denied fair hearing to the appellant by dismissing his notice of preliminary objection as well as motion to strike out certain grounds of the notice of appeal of the 1st and 2nd respondents without properly considering same.”