[ad_1]
Sunday Ejike
A constitutional lawyer, Dr Kayode Ajulo, has hailed to the Supreme Court judgement which restored the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, as the authentic Senatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), for the Yobe North Senatorial District in the forthcoming general election.
He said most of the counter comments targeted against the Supreme Court’s decision under reference are misconceived, particularly from the perspective of the law.
The Supreme Court had, on Monday, in a three-against-two split judgement of its five-member panel, led by Justice Chima Centus Nweze declared Sen. Ahmad Lawan as the authentic APC Senatorial candidate for the Yobe North Senatorial District.
The apex court in its judgment voided and set aside the judgements of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal which had earlier confirmed Bashir Sheriff Machina as the candidate.
Ajulo said the Supreme Court delivered a sound judgement based on the case presented before it while reacting to the ruling, on Tuesday, in Abuja.
“The concept of justice is not about a crying baby who runs to his sweet mother. Unlike the empathetic mother, the Supreme Court must decide any matter based on its peculiarities.” Ajulo said.
The lawyer, who disregarded opinions that labelled the judgement as ridiculous, said a better appreciation of Nigeria’s justice system will reveal that what the Court considers is cold facts and not emotions and added that, the APC should be blamed for any controversy the apex court decision has generated.
“It baffles me how people demand substantial and fair judgement but still frown at technicality. Whereas, the same technicality is the law. The concept of law is based on a technicality and that is what those who seem uncomfortable with the Supreme Court ruling must understand.
“The whole world is aware that Ahmad Lawan participated in the APC presidential primaries. And under section 115(d) of the Electoral Act; a candidate cannot be nominated in two elections. So, it was the APC that forwarded Ahmed Lawan’s name to INEC. That ironically created Ahmed Lawan as President and another as lawmaker.
“Bashir Machina, feeling cheated, was within his right to recover his mandate. However, the facts of the case remain that the grouse of Bashir Machina deals with fraud and should have been instituted by way of Writ of Summons and not Originating Summons as he did.” Ajulo said.
He further explained, “Although the Federal High Court practice direction says that Pre-election matters be instituted by way of Originating Summons, the Supreme Court has held in a plethora of authorities that the Rules of Court supersedes a practice direction. And by the rules of the Court, an allegation of fraud should be brought by way of a Writ of Summons. This has been the consistent holding of the Supreme Court in a plethora of matters and it won’t stop now.”
[ad_2]
