The counsel to the governor of Kano State, Wole Olanipekun, SAN has replied to the Court of Appeal over its request to retrieve the controversial Certified True Copy (CTC, of its judgment on the Kano Governorship Election Appeal.
The Court of Appeal, in its Friday judgment read by the chairman of the panel, Justice Moore Adumein, upheld the judgment of the Kano Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, declaring APC candidate Nasiru Gawuna as the winner of the governorship election in the state.
But when the certified true copy of the judgment was released by the court on Tuesday, a number of contradictory declarations were detected in the judgment.
In one instance, the appellate court declared “I will conclude by stating that the live issues in this appeal are hereby resolved in favor of the 1st respondent (APC) and against the appellant (Governor Abba Yusuf)”, but went further to contradict itself in another sentence.
The court said: “In the circumstances, I resolve all the issues in favor of the appellant (NNPP) and against the 1st respondent (APC).”
The court further shot itself on the foot, declaring, “Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.”
But in the final line of the judgment, the court set aside the judgment of the tribunal, which sacked the governor.
“The judgment of the tribunal In Petition No.: EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023 between: ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 2 ORS. delivered on the 20th day of September, 2023 is hereby set aside,” the CTC of the judgment read.
But when the contradictions sparked national condemnation and suspicion of foul play, the Court of Appeal wrote to the parties, withdrawing the copies.
However, Mr. Olanipekun, in a reply to the court’s request, said whether there is an error or not in the judgment, the Court of Appeal cannot reverse its decision.
“Your letter dated November 22, 2023, was delivered at our Abuja office late on the same day (November 22, 2023), and was brought to the attention of the undersigned around 10:30 a.m. today, November 23, 2023,” the senior lawyer wrote.
“As officers in the Temple of Justice, we believe we owe the institution, as well as the respected Court of Appeal, a duty to highlight and address some very pertinent issues arising out of your said letter, including, but not limited to:
“Timely Disposal of Appeal: The judgment of the lower tribunal was delivered on September 20, 2023. By the imperative of Section 285(7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Court of Appeal had only sixty (60) days to “hear and dispose” of the appeal arising from the judgment of the Tribunal. Most humbly, the Constitution applies the word “within” and not ‘from’ the date of “the delivery of the judgment of the Tribunal.”
“Constitutional Mandate: Further to the above, the Court of Appeal, by the same constitutional dictate, had up until Saturday, November 18, 2023, to ‘hear and dispose’ of the appeal filed by our client (the appellant) to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Governorship Election Tribunal, sitting in Kano. Several judicial precedents of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal itself abound in our law reports on this subject, which has now become trite.
“Function of the Court: Assuming without conceding that the judgment has some errors, whether typographical or otherwise, we humbly and dutifully draw your attention to the fact that the Court of Appeal became functus officio in the matter on Saturday, November 18, 2023.
Any application for correction of errors can only be entertained by the Supreme Court. Section 285(7) of the Constitution earlier referred to becomes very handy and imperative to the effect that the Court of Appeal cannot take any further step in the appeal or subject after the expiration of sixty (60) days.
“Chief Registrar’s Statement: Further to the foregoing, may we draw your attention to what the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Umar Bangari, was quoted to have said by Channels Television in its news program of 7-8 pm on Wednesday, November 22, 2023, that: “The Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Mister Umar Bangari, has cleared the air on the controversies surrounding the judgment delivered by the Court on the Kano Governorship Election dispute.
In reaction, Bangari said that what happened in the judgment body was a typographical error that did not in any way invalidate or change the findings and conclusion of the Court. The Chief Registrar assures that the error will be rectified once parties in the matter file a formal application to that effect. He cited Order 23 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Handbook, which empowers the court to correct any clerical error once detected by the court or any of the parties in the matter.”
“Application for Correction: In the above-quoted excerpts from the interview granted to Channels Television by the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, the following again becomes very germane: “… that the error would be rectified once parties in the matter file a formal application to that effect.
” We are not aware that any of the parties have filed any application to correct any errors. Even at that, judicial precedents are countless as to the procedure to follow and which court has jurisdiction to take such an application after the expiration of the sixty (60) days mandatorily benchmarked by the Constitution.
“Constitutional Right of Appeal: Today is the seventh day, effective from Friday, November 17, 2023, since the delivery of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. We repeat that, out of the fourteen days mandatorily prescribed for our client to file his Notice and Grounds of Appeal to the Supreme Court, he is left with just seven (7) days, and it is only fair that he should be allowed to exercise his constitutional right of appeal without any inhibition within the fraction of days left for him.
“We reiterate that this response has been borne out of a compelling duty and responsibility to the administration of justice, and, as counsel, it is our responsibility to draw attention to these salient statutory imperatives.”
