By Ishaya Ibrahim
Supporters of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) on Wednesday, protested the sacking of the Kano State Governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf.
The protesters, in their thousands, marched across major roads in Kano.
Recall that in a unanimous ruling by a panel of five justices on Saturday, the Appeal Court upheld the judgment of the State Election Tribunal. The tribunal had ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to Abba Kabir Yusuf of the NNPP and present the same to the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate in the election, Nasir Gawuna.
But there was confusion yesterday after the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Court of Appeal judgment emerged. The Certified True Copy showed the justices actually set aside the judgment of the State Governorship Election Tribunal and affirmed the election of Abba Kabir Yusuf of the NNPP.
In the document, the majority judgment resolved all the issues in favour of the appellant (Abba Kabir Yusuf), and against the first respondent (Nasir Gawuna).
A cost was even awarded against the respondent.
In an interview on Arise TV on Tuesday, senior lawyer, Femi Falana, said of the document: “You will be surprised if I show you the judgment. To my utter dismay, the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal in Kano, upheld the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court in writing and awarded cost in favour of the governor that was removed by the lower court.
“Contrary to the impression that has been given out there, the main judgment of the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the judgment of the court of Appeal is wrong. It upheld the appeal and granted all the reliefs sought by Governor Abba.”
A former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Professor Chidi Odinkalu, said the conflicting judgment is another evidence of judicial hijacking.
He said: “When we say the judiciary in #Nigeria is crooked, prople wonder how so. Look: the Court of Appeal in Kano governorship case resolved all the issues ‘in favour of the appellant & against the 1st Respondent.’ Yet it found the appeal lacking in merit &