Taraba state Gov poll:Supreme Court upholds ishaku's election.

The Supreme Court has upheld the election of Darius Dickson Ishaku of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)  as governor of Taraba State.

The court, in a unanimous judgment by a seven-man panel, led by Justice Ibrahim Galadima, dismissed the appeal by the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Hajia Aisha Jumai Al-Hassan for lacking in merit.

Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, who read the lead judgment, upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed Ishaku’s election.

Al-Hassan (now Minister of Women Affairs) challenged the return of  Ishaku as winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at the election tribunal on the grounds that he was not validly sponsored by his party, following his non-qualification.

Al-Hassan won at the tribunal, which voided Ishaku’s election and ordered INEC to issue her a certificate of return. But her victory was overturned by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, a decision she appealed to the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the court took arguments from parties and gave its judgment around 1:30 pm, but reserved its reasons to February 22.

Justice Rhodes-Vivour declared: “There is no merit in this appeal. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. The election of D.D. Ishaku is upheld. I shall give reasons for this judgment on February 22, 2016.”

The other six justices agreed with the lead judgment, the consequential orders and the promise to provide reasons for the decision at a later date.

The court said the judgment covered six other appeals and cross appeals by parties against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on December 31, 2015.

Parties in the appeals include Al-Hassan, APC, Ishaku, PDP and INEC.

Earlier, lawyers to parties highlighted the issues canvassed in their briefs of argument.

Lawyer to Al-hassan, Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), who led Mahmud Magaji (SAN) drew a distinction between his client’s case and the two cases, in relation to the governorship disputes in Benue and Zamfara states, earlier decided by the court.

In the cases identified as Tarzoor vs Ortom and Shinkafi vs Yari, the Supreme Court held that a non-member of a party, who also was not a candidate in the party’s primary election, lacked the locus (the legal right) to query the conduct of the primary and its outcome as it relates to qualification of the candidate.

Owonikoko argued that his client’s case was different in the sense that his client was contesting Ishaku’s  qualification to stand for election on the grounds of his party’s non-compliance with sections 177(1) (C) of the Constitution and 87(4) of the Electoral Act.

“In the two cases decided by this court, primaries were held and INEC confirmed that fact. But, in this case, there was no primary, which is the requirement for sponsorship/qualification to contest election to the office of a governor.

“We are not anchoring our contest of the 1st respondent’s qualification on the propriety of the primary as required under the Electoral Act. Our case is about the constitutional qualification of the 1st respondent and improper conduct of primary,” Owonikoko said.

He added that in this case, INEC’s officials testified and presented a report  that the PDP did not hold a valid primary as it purported to have held its governorship primary at the party’s headquarters in Abuja in the absence of INEC’s monitors, and in violation of the Electoral Act that such primaries must be held in the state capital.

“If they had conducted a primary, we have no locus to challenge its outcome and the candidacy of the 1st respondent,” Owonikoko added and urged the court to uphold his client’s appeal.

Ishaku’s lawyer Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the appeal by Al-Hassan. He  noted that the lower court, relying on past decisions of the Supreme Court, held that the appellants are bound by their pleadings, having averred, in some paragraphs of their petition, that the 1st respondent was a candidate of the PDP and was sponsored by the party for the election.

Agabi also argued that there was no distinction between the case and those of SC/907/2015: Shinkafi vs Yari and Tarzoor vs Ortom.

PDP’s lawyer Solo Akuma (SAN) stated that the 1st respondent was PDP’s candidate  and that the party had  never denied he was its candidate.

He noted that the tribunal found that the PDP actually held a primary, but in Abuja and not at the state capital.

“The court below also found that a primary was held and that the appellants, not being a member of the PDP lacked no locus to challenge the manner of the conduct of the primary,” Akumma said.

He argued that the distinction being made by the appellants was irrevant “because they cannot distinguish the cases. What happened in Ortom’s case was more brazen. He was in PDP on Friday 

and, on Saturday he became APC’s candidate,” he added and urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

INEC’s lawyer Joseph Daudu (SAN) also argued in a similar vein and prayed the court to dismiss the appeal by Al-Hassan.

After listening to the lawyers, the court rose for about one and half hours. It resumed proceedings at 1:30 to announce its verdict.