Rt. Hon. Aminu Iya Abbas and Ibrahim Mustapha(Baba 10)
The Federal High Court sitting in Yola, Adamawa state has put to rest the legal tussle over allegation of falsification of documents involving the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Aminu Iya Abbas.
This followed 2 separate judgements delivered in 2 different suits instituted against the Speaker by Mohammed Murtala Modibbo and Ibrahim Mustapha (Baba 10) respectively.
Modibbo and Ibrahim sued Iya Abbas, who was declared the winner of the PDP primary election conducted on the 23rd May, 2022, for Adamawa Central Senatorial District.
In their separate suits, the duo accused the Speaker of submitting falsified documents to the PDP electoral committee and asked the court to disqualify him from participating in the 2023 election.
Out of the 3 cases filed by the plaintiffs ( Modibbo 1 and Ibrahim 2), the court had while delivering judgement in one of the cases, annulled the election which produced the Speaker as the flagbearer.
Hon. Justice A. M. Anka, the presiding judge of the court did not only nullify and decline to order for fresh primary, but barred the party from fielding a candidate to represent the zone.
The judge handed down the judgement in one of the suits instituted by Baba10 and dismissed one other after finding it unmeritorious.
Baba 10 succeeded in voiding the election due to the participation of Auwal D. Tukur, who did not resign his appointment as Chairman Governing Council, State University Mubi.
At the moment, the party has no candidate; however, it is optimistic of fielding its candidate following the appeal filed by Iya Abbas, who is praying the appellate court to set aside the decision of the lower court.
NEWS PLATFROM gathered that in all the 3 suits, the plaintiffs accused the Speaker of making false declaration under oath and asked the trial court to disqualify him from contesting.
It is yet clear whether the duo will seek redress at the appeal court, but currently, both of them woefully failed to disqualify the Speaker based on their allegations of discrepancies in the declaration of age.
In his judgement, the judge pronounced that the Speaker is qualified to seek election to represent the senatorial district in 2023, a verdict described by many as a landmark judgement.
The trial court was of the view that the mode of commencement was wrongly done, and that it cannot be resolved vide affidavit of evidence as contained therein the originating summons.
It declared that the procedure of originating summons was wrongly enlisted to prosecute the allegations of various crimes levelled against the Speaker as they are required to be proved beyond iota doubt, and that the mode should be a writ of summons instead of the former.
Furthermore, the court held that going by the deposition, the speaker is 49 years old and qualify to vie for the seat, and that any false declaration therefore is not meant to circumvent Constitutional requirement as to the age limit.
It further delcared that where there is a matter of falsification of documents or rendering of a false statement as alleged, it must relate to a qualifying or disqualifying factor by virtue of the Constitution.
On the issue jurisdiction, he stated that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.
While on the issue of party membership of the speaker, he held that the issue of membership of a political party is a business of a political party.
No comments:
Post a Comment