Law professors have faulted the judgment of the Kano State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which sacked Governor Abba Yusuf of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) and declared the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Nasiru Gawuna, winner of the March 18, 2023 election.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared that the NNPP scored 1,019,602 votes to defeat the APC candidate, who polled 890,705. The NNPP candidate thus won with a margin of 128,897 votes.
But the APC filed a petition challenging the election. Last Wednesday, the three-member panel of judges delivered the judgment virtually. The tribunal invalidated over 165,663 votes counted in favour of NNPP.
Its reason for invalidating the 165,663 votes was that the ballot papers were not stamped or signed by authorised officials of INEC
Professor of Law, University of Ibadan, S. O. Adegoke, highlighted that the panel clearly showed sentiment and emotion in support of APC in the language used in the judgment.
He condemned the judgment, which reads: “I use this opportunity to condemn the gang of red cap wearers, who, like a violent and terrorist cult, chased us out of Kano and put us in the fear of our lives. We believe that only Allah is the giver of power.
“Those who believe in Allah must bow to his will and submit to the authority of governmental power. Resort to anarchy, violence and killing can never be a source of lawful power. Threatening to put honourable judges in the danger of their life as done in Kano by some disgruntled bandits parading as politicians is hereby condemned.”
According to him, one could be forgiven to think the judgment was prepared by card-carrying members of APC. “The language used clearly showed malice against the NNPP and it is by far the most unprofessional judgment I have seen in my 38 years in this profession,” Adegoke stated.
Echoing Adegoke’s submission, the Acting Head of Department, Law, University of Maiduguri, Prof. Tijjani Buba, added that mentioning Gawuna as a petitioner in the judgment, when he is not, is clearly a case of gross unprofessionalism and hostility.
He described Page 222 of the judgment as a disgrace to the law profession.
“I think the people, who wrote that tribunal judgment have a motive to disgrace the law profession. It is the only explanation for this shameful narration as a judgment. I urge the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency,” the don added.
