In a notice of appeal filed at the Supreme Court, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, counsel to Governor Abba Yusuf of Kano State, has said the analysis of the witness of the APC only established 1,886 ballots without endorsements as against 165,616 the tribunal erroneously deducted.
On November 17, the Court of Appeal in Abuja, in a judgement read by the chairman of the Kano governorship appeal panel Justice Moore Adumein, upheld the judgement of the Kano Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, declaring APC candidate, Nasiru Gawuna, as winner of the governorship election in the state.
But when the certified true copy of the judgement was released by the court four days after, the appellate court set aside the judgement of the tribunal and awarded N1million cost against the APC.
But in the notice of appeal filed by Mr Olanipekun, the senior lawyer argued that Exhibit P169 tendered by APC witness, Aminu Harbau, does not prove 165,616 invalid votes.
“Exhibit P169 states that out of the 165,616 ballot papers analyzed, only 3,936 amounting to 2.37 percent were not signed.
“Exhibit P169 further emphasizes that the said 3,936 ballot papers in (iv) supra that were not signed were both dated and stamped.
“Exhibit P169 asserts that only 1,886 ballot papers amounting to 1.13 percent of the ballot papers analyzed had “no endorsement”.
“Exhibit P169 confirms that 88.33 percent of the ballot papers analyzed amounting to 146,292 ballot papers were signed and stamped.
“The said Exhibit further indicates that 6,824 ballots were only signed, whilst an additional 4,347 carry INEC stamp, and that another 2,450 were signed and dated.
“The said Exhibit P169 also confirms that an additional 1,459 ballots carry the correct endorsement but that the endorsements were on the front of the ballot papers and not
at the back.
“All the ballot papers have the logo of INEC, coat of arms of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, are properly serialized and marked for use in the 2023 Kano State Governorship election,” Mr Olanipekun said.
On the issue of party membership, Mr Olanipekun said the court of appeal erred in law when it affirmed the tribunal’s decision in respect of allegations of non-qualification of his client.
“Paragraph 82 of the petition challenged “the right to sponsor a candidate at an election granted to a political party”.
“Paragraphs 83, 88 and 89 of the petition subsequently predicated the petitioner’s case
on sponsorship.
“The trial Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain a claim based on sponsorship of the appellant.
“The lower court lacks the jurisdiction to affirm the decision of the trial Tribunal in
(iii) supra.
“The 1st respondent is a separate political party from the 3rd respondent.
The 1st respondent lacks the locus standi to challenge the sponsorship process of the 3rd respondent.
“The 1st respondent lacks the locus standi to query the status of the 3rd respondent’s
members,” the lawyer said.
He further stated that there was no complaint before the court of appeal in Appeal No. CA/KN/EP/GOV/KAN/34/2023 against the decision of the trial tribunal declining
jurisdiction to entertain the subject of membership of a political party.
