Related Posts
Want to know what went on at the Supreme Court? Here you go.
APC’s Side:
The Court asked the Counsel to APC SAN Owonikoko to read out their petition and he did it as follows;
- Owonikoko argued that their appeal should be heard and the Supreme Court should uphold the judgement of the Tribunal.
- That Arch. Darius was a member of PDP and Sponsored by PDP.
- He also said Section 177(A) of the constitution that qualifies a candidate still stands. He further went on to refer to the case of Benue : Terrso and Ortom.
- APC’s Owonikoko further said it was not whether the primaries were held or not but how it was held, he was still emphasizing that PDP in Taraba did not conduct primaries.
- He added that INEC testified by saying they did not supervise the primaries, using the testimony of Alhaji AMINU K from INEC ABUJA to conclude that the candidate (Arch. Darius) was not sponsored by any party, tendering document of not holding primaries. According to him, the letter of conducting the primaries was not sent to INEC on the date that the primaries was to hold and no team was sent for that purpose because there was no letter from the INEC headquarters.
PDP’s Side
The Counsel to PDP Kanu Agabi ( SAN) responding in Defence said the following;
- The PDP Counsel adopted the appeal of Sen. Aisha and pleaded with the Court to dismiss this appeal, saying the Appeal Court below was right and that the appellant was bound by their own judgment that he was sponsored by a political party.
- He further said that in paragraph 3 of the petition the appellant pleaded that the respondent was a Candidate of Taraba State PDP and was produced in its primaries.
- In paragraph 4 of their petition, he said the second respondent PDP is a duly registered political party and a sponsor of the candidate Darius.
- In paragraph 9 of the APC’s petition, he said the votes in the 11 local government areas gotten by the candidate sponsored by PDP was with irregularities. The word “sponsored” was everywhere.
- He added by saying that the APC in their brief said the elections which was held in 11 April was filled with irregularities and that election should be re-conducted between the two candidates who are duly sponsored.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed that this was a pre-election matter and APC does not have the right to challenge the primaries of another party. They also maintained that the law must be strictly adhered to in all cases.
The Supreme Court justices took up Aisha’s lawyers on their pleading as contained in their petition where they pleaded that Darius is a PDP member and was sponsored by PDP.
Reactions on Twitter
Tony Atambi Esq. @TonyAtambi The reasoning of the Supreme Court in that judgment (Zamfara election petition) earlier delivered, may not favour the APC in Taraba.
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Shinkafi v. Yari might pretty much settle the Taraba Election petition in favour of PDP.
The argument in Aisha’s appeal have been taken and judgments reserved to be delivered by 1:30pm later in the day.
