The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the nomination of Dr Dauda Lawal Dare as the properly nominated governorship candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Zamfara State for the March 11 governorship election.
The apex court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro, the 5-man panel of justices dismissed an appeal brought against the nomination by another governorship aspirant, Dr Ibrahim Gusau.
It upheld the submissions of Mr Damian Dodo, SAN, counsel to Dare, that his client was legally and lawfully nominated in line with the provisions of the law.
Jauro upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had endorsed the second primary election that produced the candidate.
Dare had, in the primary election, polled 442 votes to emerge victorious over Gusau and other aspirants.
Jauro held that a Federal High Court in Gusau, which nullified the primary elections twice, had no jurisdiction at the time it adjudicated upon the suit instituted by Gusau.
The first PDP governorship primary election held on May 25, 2022 was challenged at a Federal High Court in Gusau and was nullified .
The High Court, in its judgment, ordered for fresh primary election, which was conducted on September 23, 2022 but was also quashed by the same court for irregularities.
Not satisfied with the High Court decision, Dauda Lawal Dare, Adamu Maina Waziri, the Chairman Primary Election Committee, and retired Col. Bala Mande approached the Appeal Court for redress.
Respondents in the appeal were Dr. Ibrahim Shehu Gusau, Alhaji Wadatau Madawaki, Hafiz Nahuche and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
In a unanimous judgment read by Justice Abubakar Talba on behalf of others, the Court of Appeal held that the appellants succeeded to prove all the seven grounds of appeal canvassed by their counsel and that the court resolved all in their favour.
Talba dismissed all the preliminary objections on competency of the appeal on the basis of judicial provisions and interest of 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 re-run election and notices of participation. (NAN)
