Gombe Governorship tussle goes to appeal court. The All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate in the April 11 governorship poll in Gombe State, Alhaji Mohammed Inuwa Yahaya, have approached the Court of Appeal, praying it to void the judgment of the tribunal which upheld the election of Governor Ibrahim Dankwambo.


The tribunal, headed by Justice Mohammed Sirajo, dismissed the petition brought before it by Yahaya and his party and held that Governor Ibrahim Dankwambo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was duly elected as the state governor. Specifically, the tribunal dismissed the two grounds for which the petition was premised on the ground that it lacked merit.



“Having resolved the two main issues formulated for determination in this petition against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents, we hereby dismiss the petition for lacking in merit,” the three-member panel of justices held.


Dissatisfied with the verdict of the tribunal delivered on October 14, 2015, Yahaya and the APC headed to the Court of Appeal sitting in Yola. At the appellate court they are contending that in arriving at its decision, the tribunal erred in law and misdirected itself, a misdirection, which they said, occasioned a miscarriage of justice.


Their team of lawyers led by Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN) raised 22 grounds of appeal before the appellate court. Others joined as respondents in the appeal are the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).



The appellants are contending that members of the tribunal erred in law when they held that they did not call evidence to prove their case. They said the tribunal’s position that the documents they tendered cannot be considered as evidence because they were not backed up by witnesses was erroneous. In its verdict, the tribunal held thus: “In our consideration, where a party calls a witness or tenders a document as an exhibit, it will be deemed to have called evidence. However, in this case, a party only attempted to call evidence by attempting to tender a document.


“Without success, he cannot be said to have called evidence, because a document that is rejected is not evidence before a court. In a civil proceeding, attempt to do a thing is not the same as doing that thing. It is only in the realm of our penal laws that attempt to commit an offence is itself an offence. We hold that the 3rd respondent did not call evidence in this petition and is therefore under no obligation to file its final address first. The written final address of the 3rd respondent (INEC) dated 29th September, 2015 is properly and validly filed. But the lawyer to the appellant, Akintola is arguing before the appellate court that while INEC opened its case by tendering form EC, the rejection of the document does not amount to the fact that INEC did not call evidence.



He said the document rejected could be re-admitted by the Court of Appeal because INEC, having opened its case and tendered document, must file her final address first. The appellants told the appellate court that there was nothing like an attempt to tender document by the 3rd respondent (INEC) since the document was not withdrawn before it was rejected and so marked.



“The analogy of an attempt introduced by the
honourable tribunal is novel and has occasioned a
miscarriage of justice. Failure of the honourable
tribunal to discountenance the final written address
of the 3rd respondent in the circumstance cannot
be justified,” Akintola stated.




He argued that the tribunal erred in law when it struck out paragraphs 38 to 174(ii,vii,x) of the appellants’ petition on the ground that the facts are not clear, precise, but vague, nebulous, generalised and generic.




According to Akintola, the tribunal did not consider
all the averments in the petition together, even when
parties have joined issue on the averments contained in the paragraphs of the petition struck out. He added that the averments in a petition or pleadings must be read together and not one paragraph in isolation.




The appellants are also contending that the tribunal
erred in law by holding that the depositions adopted
by witnesses, PW2, PW3, PW7,PW10, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW17 are incompetent “on account of failure of the person that interpreted the statement to sign the column for interpreter and accordingly expunged the evidence found on the said depositions of the witnesses.


we need justice, because we vote PDP out during last governoship election