The Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Monday, upheld the election victory of Governor Ahmad Aliyu of Sokoto State. The three-member panel of Justices unanimously affirmed the decision of the Sokoto State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which had previously validated Governor Aliyu’s electoral success.
Umar and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had taken their grievances to the tribunal, alleging that Governor Aliyu and his deputy, Idris Gobir, were ineligible to contest the gubernatorial poll. The petitioners argued that the duo did not secure the majority of valid votes cast, a requirement for being declared winners by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). They further claimed that the election suffered from irregularities and was not conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.
Among their allegations was that the governor and his deputy submitted forged certificates with variations of names to INEC to qualify for the election. Additionally, the petitioners asserted that electoral fraud occurred in 138 polling units in the state.
However, the tribunal, led by Justice Haruna Mshelia, dismissed the petition on September 30, deeming it lacking in merit. The tribunal held that the petitioners failed to prove any of the raised allegations. It emphasized that the evidence presented by the PDP and its candidate’s witnesses was incompetent, as their statements on oath were not submitted alongside the petition, as required by law. The tribunal also stressed that the criminal nature of the forgery allegation required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a burden the petitioners did not meet.
Furthermore, the tribunal noted that 70 percent of the exhibits presented by the petitioners were irrelevant, as they pertained to State House of Assembly elections conducted on the same date as the governorship poll. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the petition and affirmed the election outcome.
In upholding the tribunal’s decision on Monday, the Court of Appeal concluded that much of the evidence presented by the petitioners was legally inadmissible. It endorsed the tribunal’s decision to exclude incompetent exhibits that were either not pleaded or irrelevant to the case at hand.
