The Supreme Court convened on Tuesday to deliberate the appeal brought forth by the sitting Governor of Plateau State, Barr. Caleb Manasseh Mutfwang of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The appeal sought to challenge the annulment of his election by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal had previously declared Nentawe Yilwatda of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the rightful governor, asserting that Mutfwang’s candidacy lacked valid sponsorship from the PDP. The decision was based on the PDP’s violation of a court order mandating a repeat congress in all local government areas of the state.
A five-member panel, presided over by Justice John Okoro, led the Supreme Court proceedings. During the hearing, the court raised critical questions concerning the jurisdiction of both the tribunal and the lower court to entertain matters related to nomination, sponsorship, and the qualification of candidates by a political party.
The court clarified its stance, asserting that such issues were internal matters of the party and should not be subject to tribunal or court adjudication. Despite three petitions filed by different parties, the court communicated that it would only consider the appeal submitted by Governor Mutfwang, and any decision rendered would apply universally.
Prominent Senior Advocates of Nigeria led the legal teams, with Chief Kanu Agabi representing the governor, Emeka Etiaba for the PDP, S. Atung arguing on behalf of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Prof. Olatoke defending Nentawe Yilwatda of the APC.
Upon scrutinizing the arguments presented, the court concluded that both the election petition tribunal and the Plateau State High Court, in the case of Kaze, had overstepped their jurisdiction by engaging in matters beyond their purview.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the nomination and sponsorship of candidates rested solely with the national working committee of a party, not the state chapter, as outlined in section 87 of the Electoral Act.
The Supreme Court, having duly considered the proceedings, reserved judgment in the appeal. The court indicated that a specific date for the judgment would be communicated to the involved parties. It is anticipated that the judgment will be delivered on or before January 16, 2024, marking the expiration of the appeal.
