[ad_1]
The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the nomination of Dauda Lawal-Dare as the properly nominated governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Zamfara State for the March 11 election.
In a unanimous judgement by Justice Adamu Jauro, the five-man panel of justices of the apex court dismissed an appeal brought against the nomination by another governorship aspirant, Ibrahim Gusau.
It upheld the submissions of Damian Dodo SAN, counsel to Mr Lawal-Dare, that his client was legally and lawfully nominated in line with the provisions of the law.
Mr Jauro upheld the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which had endorsed the second primary election that produced the candidate.
Mr Lawal-Dare had, in the primary election, polled 442 votes to emerge victorious over Mr Gusau and other aspirants.
Mr Jauro held that a Federal High Court in Gusau, which nullified the primary elections twice, had no jurisdiction when it adjudicated upon the suit instituted by Mr Gusau.
The first PDP governorship primary election held on May 25, 2022, was challenged at the Federal High Court in Gusau and was nullified.
The High Court, in its judgement, ordered a fresh primary election conducted on September 23, 2022, but it was also quashed by the same court for irregularities.
Not satisfied with the High Court decision, Mr Lawal-Dare, Adamu Maina-Waziri, the chairman of the Primary Election Committee, and retired Col. Bala Mande approached the Appeal Court for redress.
Respondents in the appeal were Ibrahim Shehu-Gusau, Wadatau Madawaki, Hafiz Nahuche and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
In a unanimous judgement read by Justice Abubakar Talba on behalf of others, the Court of Appeal held that the appellants succeeded in proving all the seven grounds of appeal canvassed by their counsel and that the court resolved all in their favour.
Mr Talba dismissed all the preliminary objections on the competency of the appeal based on judicial provisions and the interest of a fair hearing, saying that technical defaults could not supersede judicial provisions.
He held that the High Court judge was wrong to discountenance documents submitted by INEC and that the trial court did not stipulate the period of conducting a re-run election and notices of participation.
(NAN)
[ad_2]
