AHEAD of the listening to of his transient by the Supreme Courtroom, the governor of Plateau State, Mr Caleb Mutfwang, has described the premise upon which the Courtroom of Enchantment arrived at a call to sack him as governor as flawed and unfair.
In Mutfwang’s transient on the Supreme Courtroom led by his counsel, Kanu Agabi, SAN, the governor held that out of eight points it positioned earlier than the courtroom for dedication, just one was thought-about and this was the idea upon which judgment was handed with out figuring out the remaining seven points it offered.
Mutfwang, by means of his authorized staff, can be presenting earlier than the Supreme Courtroom the argument that the Courtroom of Enchantment denied it honest listening to by dismissing its discover of preliminary objection in addition to a movement to strike out the incompetent grounds of enchantment.
Arguing that the courtroom denied it recent listening to, Mutfwang is asking the Supreme Courtroom to declare as null and void the sooner proceedings and judgment of the Courtroom of Enchantment which invalidated his election.
He stated: “Eight points have been distilled and positioned earlier than the courtroom beneath for dedication. Sadly, just one problem (of jurisdiction) was decided by the courtroom beneath leaving untouched seven points. This courtroom has said in fairly various instances that intermediate courts ought to pronounce on all points positioned earlier than it. It mustn’t prohibit it to a number of points, which its opinion might get rid of the matter.
“That is to offer the apex courtroom the good thing about their views within the matter ought to there be want to contemplate different points not decided by the intermediate courtroom. It’s our additional submission that having denied honest listening to to the appellant, with respect to the discover of preliminary objection in addition to a movement to strike out the incompetent grounds of enchantment, the choice of the decrease courtroom to dismiss similar is, with all due respect manifestly flawed.
“The implication of denial of honest listening to renders proceedings null and void. See the case POROYE V. MAKARFI (2018) 1 NWLR (PT.1599) 91 AT 153, PARAS. D – E. We respectfully urge the honourable courtroom to invoke its powers in Part 22 of the Supreme Courtroom Act by upholding the discover of preliminary objection of the appellant embedded in his transient earlier than the decrease courtroom was additionally granting the movement of the appellant filed on November 2, 2023 earlier than the decrease courtroom by hanging out grounds 1 – 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22 of the discover and grounds of enchantment of the first and 2nd respondents.”
In a Courtroom of Enchantment resolution of November 19, the three-member panel had dominated that Muftwang was not sponsored by his get together, the Peoples Democratic Get together (PDP).
The courtroom held that the enchantment introduced by Nentawe Goshwe of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was legitimate as the problem of qualification was each a pre and post-election matter beneath Part 177(c) of the Nigerian Structure and Sections 80 and 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022.
Faulting the Enchantment Courtroom ruling, within the transient earlier than the Supreme Courtroom, Mutfwang listed eight explanation why the apex courtroom ought to validate his election because the governor of Plateau State.
He added that he connected sufficient proof to show that the Courtroom of Enchantment mustn’t have cancelled his election.
He argued: “The problem of nomination and sponsorship which underpinned floor 1 of the petition is just not solely a pre-election, however throughout the inner affairs of the 4th respondent and as such the first and 2nd respondents lacked the locus standi to canvass it.
“The judgment of the decrease courtroom delivered on November 19, 2023 is fatally flawed for need of jurisdiction having regard to Part 285(2) of the Structure (supra). Disobedience of courtroom order is just not one of many grounds for sustaining election petition beneath Part 134 of the Electoral Act (supra) neither is it a part of Part 177(c) of the Structure (supra), not to mention disqualifying the appellant from contesting the election.
“At any price, given the overwhelming oral and documentary proof together with, however not restricted to reveals U and 2RA3, the fourth respondent complied with exhibit G1 by conducting state congress on September 25, 2021 in Plateau State. The proof of PW16 was completely discredited and controverted and as such the decrease courtroom was clearly within the fallacious to have closely relied on it towards the appellant.
“The primary and second respondents woefully did not discharge the requisite burden of proof on them and as such not entitled to the reliefs sought of their petition extra in order that having impugned the election as invalid for non-compliance, it’s absurd of them to put declare to victory for a similar election. The decrease courtroom was, with all due respect, in grave error when it held that the tribunal was fallacious in hanging out the offensive paragraphs of appellant’s reply and in utilising proof of PW16, PW24, PW27 and PW28 as a tribunal of first occasion.
“The decrease courtroom denied honest listening to to the appellant by dismissing his discover of preliminary objection in addition to movement to strike out sure grounds of the discover of enchantment of the primary and second respondents with out correctly contemplating similar. We have now demonstrably proven on this transient that, to all intents and functions, the judgment of the decrease courtroom, with the best respect, has occasioned injustice of unquantifiable magnitude to the appellant.
“The legislation is settled that wherever there’s a fallacious, there have to be a treatment. This precept of legislation which is of appreciable antiquity is expressed within the Latin maxim, ubi jus, ibi remedial.
“We, subsequently, most respectfully urge the honourable courtroom to permit the enchantment, put aside the judgment of the decrease courtroom and thereupon affirm the appellant because the duly elected governor of Plateau State.”