Toba Owojaiye reportingÂ
Abuja, NigeriaÂ
In a dramatic turn of events, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, legal counsel to Governor Abba Yusuf of Kano State, has filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court, challenging the deduction of 165,616 votes from Yusuf’s tally by the Kano Governorship Election Petition Tribunal. The appeal comes after the Court of Appeal initially upheld the tribunal’s decision, declaring APC candidate Nasiru Gawuna as the winner.
Truth Live News gathered that Olanipekun contended that the tribunal’s deduction was based on an erroneous interpretation of Exhibit P169, presented by the APC witness, Aminu Harbau. According to Olanipekun, the analysis only revealed 1,886 ballots without endorsements, not the substantial number the tribunal deducted.
Exhibit P169, scrutinizing 165,616 ballot papers, indicated that only 3,936 (2.37%) lacked signatures. Emphasizing this, Olanipekun pointed out that these unsigned ballots were both dated and stamped. The crucial argument lies in the assertion that only 1,886 (1.13%) had “no endorsement.” Additionally, the exhibit confirmed that a significant 88.33% of the analyzed ballots were signed and stamped.
Furthermore, Olanipekun highlighted variations in endorsements, revealing that 6,824 ballots were only signed, 4,347 carried the INEC stamp, and another 2,450 were both signed and dated. Importantly, he noted that an additional 1,459 ballots had the correct endorsement but were on the front, not the back, of the papers.
Olanipekun asserted, “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.”
Shifting focus to party membership, Olanipekun argued that the court of appeal erred in affirming the tribunal’s decision regarding allegations of Governor Yusuf’s non-qualification. He specifically pointed to Paragraphs 82, 83, 88, and 89 of the petition, which challenged “the right to sponsor a candidate at an election granted to a political party” and predicated the case on sponsorship.
According to Olanipekun, the trial tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain claims based on sponsorship, and the lower court erred in affirming this decision.
He emphasized that the 1st respondent (Governor Yusuf) is a separate political party from the 3rd respondent (APC) and lacks the standing to challenge the sponsorship process of the latter. Additionally, Olanipekun argued that there was no complaint against the tribunal’s decision on party membership before the court of appeal.
As the legal battle unfolds, Olanipekun SAN’s notice of appeal raises crucial questions about the validity of the deducted votes and the jurisdiction of the tribunal in handling party membership issues.
With a prolific track record in apex cases, Olanipekun’s argumentation holds weight, leaving the public and residents of Kano in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision, which will undoubtedly shape the political landscape in the state.