Photo: Gov Caleb Mutfwang, right, Dr Nentawe Goshwe, left; their protracted battle royale for the soul of Plateau ends on Friday, January 12.
By Mark Longyen
Breaking: Supreme Court delivers judgment on Plateau Governorship case Friday
The Supreme Court has fixed Friday, January 12, to deliver judgment on an appeal filed by Gov Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State, seeking to nullify the decision of the Court of Appeal that earlier sacked him from office.
Periscope International reports that the Court of Appeal had in a controversial judgment on November 19, 2023, sacked Mutfwang, who is of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and declared the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Nentawe Yilwatda, as the winner.
Mutfwang, who was earlier declared winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as well as the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, however, faulted the Court of Appeal’s judgment and approached the Supreme Court to restore his mandate.
The apex court had on Tuesday reserved judgment in the Governor’s appeal after hearing the submissions of the various counsel to parties in the case, and ruled that the final verdict will be passed on or before January 16, saying it would communicate the judgment date to the parties in the case.
Barely 48 hours after, however, the Supreme Court on Thursday communicated to the parties its decision to deliver judgment on Friday, January 12.
Mr P.E. Dakyen, the Acting Legal Adviser of the Peoples Democratic Party, Plateau Chapter, confirmed the judgment date in a statement on Thursday.
The statement reads: “Take notice that judgment in the Plateau State Governorship Appeal at the Supreme Court is scheduled to be delivered on Friday, January 12, 2024.
“Our counsel has been officially notified, hence this notice.”
Also, the APC Chapter in the state in a statement signed by its state Publicity Secretary, Sylvanus Namang, also confirmed the development in a statement on Thursday, and called on its members to remain calm as the apex court delivers the expected judgment.
Namang said: “As the Supreme Court sitting in Abuja rules on the Plateau State governorship case tomorrow, Friday, January 12, 2024, the All Progressives Congress in Plateau State is calling on all its members, supporters and well-wishers to be calm and refrain from any act contrary to our culture of maintaining decorum and peace in all our conducts.
“Whatever direction the decision of the apex court goes, the APC which has been a respecter of the rule of law and a strong believer in our judicial system, would welcome the outcome in good faith.
“The APC in the state enjoins security agencies in the state to be extra vigilant to ensure that law and order is maintained.
“The party wishes to restate its position on the respect for constitutionalism and rule of law which are sacrosanct for democracy and good governance.”
It would be recalled that the Governor alleged in his submission before the Supreme Court that he was not given a fair hearing by the Court of Appeal, hence, its decision to nullify his election was manifestly flawed.
In his eight issues distilled before the Court of Appeal, Governor Mutfwang argued through his legal team led by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN) that only one of the issues was determined, while 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.
Agabi argued that alleged disobedience to a subsisting order of court was not part of the grounds to consider in disqualifying a candidate sponsored by a political party.
He argued that the entire petition was founded on the nomination and sponsorship of his client by the PDP.
He said the court departed from judicial precedence of the apex court on the issue of sponsorship, which is a pre-election matter.
Agabi insisted that since his client was not given a fair hearing, the Supreme Court should dismiss the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which invalidated his election.
He said: “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.”
He listed eight reasons why the Supreme Court should validate his client’s election as follows:
“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, 023 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.”
During the hearing of the appeal on Tuesday, by the five-member panel of the Supreme Court led by John Okoro, who took arguments from lawyers to parties in the case, a fierce session of arguments ensued between Mutfwang’s counsel, Kanu Agabi, and Mr. Yilwatda’s counsel, Prof J.O Olatoke.
Prior to 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.
Justice Okoro also 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 a subsisting order 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 number 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 that exhibits were tendered by INEC and others to show that valid a congress was held.
He added that in any case, by the apex court’s precedent decision, the APC has no standing to challenge the congress of another political party.
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 the alleged invalid congress was instituted by PDP cheiftains and was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
In his submission, however, Mr 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.
