In a dramatic turn of events, Kano State became the focal point of unrest as defiant protesters took to the streets of the ancient city. The cause of the unrest stemmed from a contradicting Appeal Court judgment that swiftly became viral, igniting tensions within the region. Reports indicated that the protest originated around the Kofar DanAgundi area in Kano State Municipal, quickly escalating due to the controversial nature of the certified true copy (CTC) of the Court of Appeal judgment on the state’s governorship election.
This wave of discontent sprang from the discrepancy between the initial judgment delivered in court and the subsequent CTC that surfaced. The emergence of conflicting documents stirred emotions, sparking concerns and confusion among the populace. The contradicting nature of the CTC raised eyebrows, setting the stage for widespread dissent and agitation among the citizens.
Tension Mounts Amid Contradictory Verdicts In Kano State
The tension in Kano State has been palpable following the dissemination of the CTC, which contradicts the judgment pronounced during the court proceedings. This discrepancy regarding the outcome of the governorship election has left the public in a state of uncertainty and disbelief. The discrepancy between the officially pronounced judgment and the contents of the circulated CTC has cast a shadow of doubt over the credibility of the legal process.
The Certified True Copy’s contradicting stance has amplified concerns and led to growing apprehension among the populace. The lack of consistency in the documented verdicts has fueled skepticism and unrest, creating a climate of uncertainty and dissent within the region.
APC’s Response and Legal Standpoint
The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) swiftly responded to the brewing controversy, attempting to assuage concerns about the reported contradictions in the CTC. Prof. Abdulkareem Kana, the party’s National Legal Adviser, addressed the issue at a press conference in Abuja. Kana downplayed the discrepancies, attributing them to typographical errors commonly found in certified true copies of court judgments. He emphasized that such errors, while not uncommon, shouldn’t overshadow the judgment delivered in open court.
However, Kana’s statements did little to quell the rising tensions. The APC’s stance on the matter seemed more focused on downplaying the errors rather than addressing the deepening concerns and unrest in Kano State. Moreover, the party’s revelation that they had not yet received the CTC raised questions about the handling of the situation, prompting further uncertainty about the steps to rectify the discrepancy.
Way Forward and Calls for Corrections
While the APC suggested that necessary steps would be taken upon receiving the CTC, there remained ambiguity surrounding the correction process. Kana hinted at plans to formally request the CTC and take action if the error persisted. His commentary underscored the importance of rectifying the mistake but also implied a degree of uncertainty regarding the party’s actual course of action.
The focus on obtaining the accurate CTC to assess the reported error seemed to be the primary step toward addressing the controversy. However, Kana’s remarks hinted at a lack of clarity on the procedures and responsibility for rectification, leaving the resolution of this discordant judgment in limbo.
;
Public Expectations and Legal Accountability
Amidst the political and legal back-and-forth, the public’s expectations for transparency and accountability in the judicial process remain unfulfilled. The dissemination of conflicting documents and the subsequent protests have spotlighted the need for swift and decisive actions to address the discrepancies.
The call for corrections and clarity in the judgment process echoes louder against the backdrop of the unrest in Kano State. The onus remains on the judicial authorities to navigate this situation with transparency and rectify the errors to restore public confidence in the legal system.
The unfolding events in Kano State continue to emphasize the critical need for clarity, accountability, and swift resolution to restore faith in the judicial process amidst this discordant appeal court judgment.
Kano Governorship Election Verdict Stands: Appeal Court Addresses Controversy
In a decisive move aimed at clarifying the recent upheaval surrounding its judgment on the Kano State governorship election dispute, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed its stance that resulted in the removal of Governor Abba Yusuf. Dismissing the controversy swirling around a section of the certified true copy of its judgment, the court deemed it a mere clerical error, refuting claims by Governor Yusuf and the NNPP that this section validated their victory in the March 18 gubernatorial contest.
Chief Registrar Mr Umar Mohammed Bangari emphasized that the clerical mistake, while acknowledged, didn’t alter the unanimous conclusion of the three-member panel of justices who presided over the appeal. He assured that rectification of this error would occur upon the formal submission of a request from the concerned parties, citing the court’s authority under Order 23 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Handbook to rectify such discrepancies.
Bangari underscored that despite the speculations circulating on social media, the court’s judgment retained its validity. “The Court is empowered to correct such clerical error, and that will be done as appropriate,” he emphasized, seeking to allay any concerns about the judgment’s integrity.
NNPP Allegations and Court Ruling Recap
However, the NNPP , in a press conference, alleged tampering with the appellate court’s judgment, asserting that this alteration led to a revision of the original panel’s conclusion. The appellate court, on November 17, ousted Governor Yusuf and declared Nasiru Gawuna of the APC as the rightful winner of the governorship poll. Alongside this, a penalty of N1 million was imposed on the dismissed governor.
The court’s decision rested on the established evidence indicating that Governor Yusuf was not an active NNPP member during the election period, a condition required by Section 177(c) of the 1999 Constitution for gubernatorial candidates. According to Justice M. U. Adumeh, the lead judge, sponsorship devoid of membership equated to an invalid qualification for contesting elections.
In response, both Governor Yusuf and the NNPP vowed to challenge the ruling at the Supreme Court, citing a perceived miscarriage of justice against them. Despite their stance, the Court of Appeal remains resolute in its position, assuring the public of the validity of its judgment while addressing the identified clerical error.
Like this: Like Loading...
Discover more from OGM News NG
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
