Appeal Court Says Contradictions in CTC of Judgment are Clerical Errors

The Court of Appeal moved quickly, Wednesday, to douse tension triggered by the conflicting depositions in the Certified True Copy, CTC, of the majority judgment that upheld the nullification, by the Kano State election petitions tribunal, of Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s election as the state chief executive.

The Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Mohammed Umar Bangari, described the apparent contradictions in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the majority judgment as mere clerical errors.

Protests had rocked Kano city, Wednesday, following the governor’s sack by the Court of Appeal sitting in Kano. According to reports, matters could have escalated but for the timely intervention of the police who dispersed protesters along the Dan Agundi area of the state.

The fresh protests followed the Certified True Copy of the judgement that filtered into the news media as well as social media showing pronouncements that were at variance with the verdict delivered openly by the appellate court.

According to Channels Television, some of the protesters reportedly swore that they were ready to die as they demanded justice.

On its part, the police authorities in Kano had vowed to clamp down on any form of protest emanating from the sacking of Governor Yusuf who was the gubernatorial candidate of the March 2023 election.

Though the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had, last March, declared Yusuf as the winner of the poll, the state governorship election petitions tribunal sacked the governor in September. And, last Friday, the Court of Appeal affirmed the tribunal’s decision and dismissed Governor Yusuf’s appeal as lacking in merit.

It held that Yusuf’s name was not in the NNPP’s register, making him unqualified to contest the election. The court, therefore, declared the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Nasiru Gawuna, as the winner of the poll.

Since then, the state has been on edge, with the political temperature spiraling to dangerous heights.

But Bangari told journalists in Abuja, Wednesday, that the contradictions were nothing serious, adding that the counsels as well as the politicians knew the truth but only chose to play to the gallery.

For effect, the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal stated categorically that the observable contradictions on Page 67 of the CTC of the judgment was merely a clerical error that happens from time to time.

He maintained that the errors did not invalidate the findings and conclusions of the appellate court in any way. In any case, he insisted that the courts have a way of dealing with such problems through the instrumentality of the law.

“What happened in the judgment is just a mere clerical error,” Bangari declared, “and the attention of the court has been drawn to it; and appropriate steps within the ambit of the law will be taken” to rectify it once parties in the matter filed formal application to that effect.

To buttress his point, he drew the attention of the journalists  to Order 23 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Book which empowers the court to correct any clerical error once detected by the court or any of the parties in the matter.

In the CTC dated November 21 and signed by one of the court’s registrar, Ibrahim Umar, the majority judgment delivered by Justice Moore Abraham Adumein had read in part on page 67: “I will conclude by stating that the live issues in this appeal are hereby resolved in favour of the 1st respondent and against the appellant.”

Then, the gaffe: “In the circumstances, I resolve all the issues in favour of the appellant and against the 1st respondent.

“Thereby I find no merit in this appeal which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

“The judgment of the tribunal in Petition No: EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023 between All Progressives Congress (APC) versus Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and 2 others delivered on September 20, 2023 is hereby set aside.

“The sum of N1 million is hereby awarded as cost in favour of the appellant and against 1st respondent.”