The court subsequently dismissed the appeal brought by the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, challenging the decision of the election tribunal and the Court of Appeal which had upheld the victory of Lamido.
The Election tribunal had earlier upheld the victory of Lamido but the ACN approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the tribunal’s judgment. It lost as the tribunal’s decision was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Still not satisfied ACN approached the apex court seeking to set aside the decision of the lower court.
In its brief judgement,a panel of three justices of the apex court headed by Justice Mohammed Mahmud held that having gone through the processes filed and the argument of counsel, it had come to the conclusion that the appeal lacks merit.
The court added that the lower courts were right in their concurrent decision which upheld the victory of Lamido at the April governorship election conducted by the Independent National Election Commission in the state.
The Supreme Court however fixed February 24, to give reasons for its judgment.
The ACN had challenged the victory of Lamido on grounds that the governor presented fake secondary school result to the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC and that the election was full of irregularities and malpractices.
The tribunal dismissed their petition on grounds that the party failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence dismissed the petition for lacking in merit.
The appellate court had also agreed with the tribunal that the appeal lacked merit and hence dismissed it.
Speaking with newsmen after the court’s decision was delivered, counsel to Governor Lamido, Chief Effiong Bassey Offiong, a senior advocate of Nigeria, expressed satisfaction with the outcome amd noted that at both the Tribunal and the Aourt of Appeal, that the governor was commended for taking steps to show that his secondary school he submitted was genuine by tendering the original as well as calling a class mate of his at the secondary school he attended between 1962 and 1966 to come and give evidence even though he was not under any obligation to do so, as the onus lied on his accusers to prove their allegations.
No comments:
Post a Comment